Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2013

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 9 Jan 2013 at 04:38:56 (UTC)

Reason

Large image of a watercolor painting by a notable artist, relevant to multiple articles, lead image in History of coffee and Coffee culture. Note that the subject is identified as Princess Dunyazade in two articles but I believe that this may be mistaken so I'm not including those articles in the list below.

Articles in which this image appears

History of coffee, Coffee culture, Coffee, France-Turkey relations, History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty, Women in Islam, John Frederick Lewis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Watercolor painting by John Frederick Lewis, photo by The Yorck Project, original upload by Eloquence, edited by Soerfm

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 04:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, the Yorck project generally did a very poor job of reproducing the artworks. In particular, note all the JPEG compression artefacts around her face. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose essentially per Adam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought those might have been because of the artist's technique when he painted this but the more I look at this the more I agree with you. Withdraw. --Pine^✉ 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 21:07:16 (UTC)

Reason

The original is a high EV image used on several articles as the lead image through Template:Financial market participants. I also just added it as the lead image in the article Coins of the United States dollar which previously had no lead image. While this image has more bokeh than I prefer, I think it compensates with its high EV. The alt currently isn't used in articles but I think could be substituted in place of the original if people prefer that version.

Articles in which this image appears

Coins of the United States dollar, Template:Financial market participants, Algorithmic trading, Credit union, Financial intermediary, Financial market participants, Investor, Pension, and several others

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Elembis

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Many coins aren't entirely visible, it would be better to put them separately in one row instead of stacking. However, given that the subject is easily reproducible, showing both obverses and reverses of each coin would be the best option in terms of EV (but I would support the former option as well). Brandmeister^talk 22:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that these are good photos of an assortment of US coins, and that it's both unnecessary and impossible to show the obverse and reverse of every United States coin in a single photo, remember that there have been a great many varieties and designs of coins throughout history. If someone wants to see photos of individual coins of many types then the article Coins of the United States dollar is a better resource than any individual photo is likely to be. For a single photo of an assortment of US coins, I think either of these photos can do the job. --Pine^✉ 22:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean those in current circulation. Showing all US coins that have been ever minted is naturally almost impossible. Brandmeister^talk 00:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coins in current circulation will change over time, so I think showing a reasonably diverse assortment is sufficient, as these photos do. --Pine^✉ 00:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: For a FP of relatively simple design, such as this, I expect the technical details to be especially good. Unfortunately, only about a third of the picture is in focus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the bokeh effect in the original may have been intentional. How do you feel about the alt? --Pine^✉ 02:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a bit, but not 2/3rds of the image, when the point is to provide a sampling of coins. As for the alt: No dimes, no nickels. (Which is another issue with the original, by the way: only quarter is deep in the blur). I don't see these as sufficiently illustrative, I fear. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think the usage has very much EV - outside of the use that was added today to Coins of the U.S. dollar, everything's just an infobox usage, which doesn't add any EV. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Looking at the article of which this is the lead, the main thing needed beyond the photographs of individual coins is one that clearly shows their respective, relative sizes. Neither of these does so: the original makes it look like dimes are the same size as nickels through forced perspective, and the alt only contains two denominations. As for the always-tricky ratio between EV and aesthetics, in this case, since these are such readily available objects, it seems reasonable to demand both, and neither of these images seems very well composed to me. Interesting subject to think about, though. Chick Bowen 06:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  On the EV issue for the stacked coins, I'd be interested to see an arrangement where the size of the stacks conveyed useful information—perhaps showing a dollar's worth of each denomination (and of course showing more than just two denominations). Granted, it would be difficult to arrange in such a way that all of the coins' faces were in focus. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 01:27:27 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, fairly famous painting and artist, stable lead image in the pertinent article

Articles in which this image appears

Apollo and Daphne, Antonio del Pollaiolo, Daphne, Metamorphoses

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Antonio del Pollaiolo

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no reason to oppose. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - acceptable EV to both Apollo and Daphne and particularly Antonio del Pollaiolo. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raekyt 11:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. Dusty777 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Piero del Pollaiolo (attr.) Apollo and Daphne.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 02:32:22 (UTC)

Reason

I was actually surprised to find this image here on site, as I didn't think that this sort of thing existed, but here we have a functional shower facility in use aboard an actual human space station, in this case the (now defunct) Skylab station. While showering is in and of itself not something I would typically nominate here at FPC the fact that this one takes place in space and demonstrates (depending on your view) either an engineering triumph that allows us to shower in space or the limitations of our current technology to engineer an acceptable solution to hygiene when deprived our natural habitat suggests to me a high degree of encyclopedic value, and that in turn suggests that from our standpoint of an encyclopedia this is an image that deserves a featured star for its ability to convey a point of interest about our space programs that is not easily conveyed in words.

Articles in which this image appears

Bathing, Hygiene, Skylab 3

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exactly the sort of weird little thing that's rather awesome. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support as it can't be re-taken, but not full support as it doesn't show how the shower works... Effectively this is a picture of a man standing in a white round bag... gazhiley 11:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think NASA wants to publish astronaut porn, though. =P Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean, but they don't have to have the person in there naked to have a picture of the shower working... He could be wearing boxers or something to protect his modesty... Don't get me wrong, I'm supporting the picture because I know it is good, but for me I would not know that was a shower without reading the article... gazhiley 11:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even then, though, isn't the point of the white round bag that it keeps water from getting out into the rest of the craft, so any picture of it in operation would show less? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's why I supported... Not really a lot else we could do - however it isn't great hence weak... gazhiley 10:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not great quality at all, but encyclopedic and very cool. ceranthor 05:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; technical issues can be overlooked because of age and uniqueness. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 06:29:29 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and eye-catching image

Articles in which this image appears

Arp 273

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sure, looks good, with the only problems being the standard, unavoidable issues for such images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great Alborzagros (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, esentially per Adam. At a less ridiculous size the problems fade away. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --Pine^✉ 05:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just, amazing. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Alborzagros (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:UGC 1810 and UGC 1813 in Arp 273 (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 06:32:35 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Melitaea trivia, List of butterflies of Israel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Gidip

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fairly sharp, good contrast, interesting butterfly. Wish the article was better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Could be a bit sharper, and it's a little grainy, but then, it is a macro of a living insect, so some allowances can be made. Weak support since we do get better ones on occasion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is good enough. --Pine^✉ 18:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice quality and high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is in the middle of several nominations that have the extended nomination for the holiday template, I'm assuming that this had voting extended too despite the fact that the template was not changed. If this is not the case please disregard my vote. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 15:15:09 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, FP in commons and Persian, Turkish language Wikipedia, Full of EV and +POTY label.

Articles in which this image appears

Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque, ceiling, symmetry, Rotational symmetry

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

Nikopol

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Didn't we do this in April. It got plenty reviewers. Has anything changed? -- Colin°^Talk 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually discussed in detail in the first article now, so the objection is overcome. However, it isn't actually in the article rotational symmetry anymore, and that should be removed from the list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per myself in April. The article is over illustrated, but this one should definitely stay where it is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per my earlier oppose it looks nice but has limited encyclopaedic value. As an architectural feature it could be anything: a mosque, a palace, someone's house. Mathematically it looks like it has 32-fold rotational symmetry but look closely and the pattern in the main central region appears 16 times, but alternately mirrored so the rotational symmetry is 8-fold, confirmed by the eight-pointed star in the very centre. This can't be seen in the thumbnail as the middle looks like noise. So it has very limited value as an example of symmetry.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is now discussed in the mosque article, so it may have EV there now. I agree about it having much less EV in symmetry. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose as in April, (composition/framing). --ELEKHH^T 00:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No EV, per last nomination. Dusty777 01:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• that is a great picture concerning architecture and tile work. That is undigestible for me which some say No EV.Alborzagros (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now has enough EV. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Those of you who are Supporting, and not seeing the reason behind the "No EV" Oppose, did you happen to notice there is 18 other pictures in Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque (including one featured picture)? The article isn't even long enough to support 5-10 pictures, much less 19 with 2 featured pictures IMO. While the picture appears in symmetry and ceiling, the EV from those two is fairly minimal, and not enough to warrant a support. Dusty777 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure I mentioned that, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed you did, but I didn't see any reason for not mentioning it. =D Dusty777 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on EV grounds per Dusty777. — raekyt 04:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Nice for Commons, but I'm still not feeling the EV. J Milburn (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just being an article doesn't give it EV, the image itself doesn't have enough EV because it just shows a design and no context. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 17:46:50 (UTC)

Reason

A high-quality image of an interesting artist's work.

Articles in which this image appears

John Lee (artist), HMS Majestic (1853), British Marine Art (Romantic Era), List of Pre-Raphaelite paintings

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

John Lee, photo by the Google Art Project.

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good scene, but slightly soft at full size IMO. Brandmeister^talk 21:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be the painting, not the photo. I'm really not sure; I only do watercolours myself, and it looks a bit like effects you commonly get in watercolours, but I don't know if that happens with oils ever. It's a rather unusual technique, anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Alborzagros (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose--a poor example of pre-Raphaelite art by a very minor painter. You'd better off picking Google Art images at random. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support If this really is Lee's masterpiece, with a possible self portrait of the artist, then this has EV. However, I agree that it's quite soft and, without seeing the painting to see if it's in the original, I can't put myself behind it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per Crisco. --Pine^✉ 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose It's a soft image and the above EV issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As above (more or less), bad painting by very minor artist. Inclusion in List of Pre-Raphaelite paintings is inappropriate when there are no illustrations of well known paintings - are lists supposed to be illustrated? ProfDEH (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 23:15:22 (UTC)

Reason

Our only photo of the best-known Yeoman Warder costume, and the one rarest worn in modern days, the Tudor State Dress uniform.

Articles in which this image appears

Yeoman Warders

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co., restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusually good recoloring Shii (tock) 03:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Detroit Publishing Co. were usually pretty good. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support striking both at thumbnail and full size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: the recoloring is good, but there are still parts that are distracting. For example, the door knocker stands out too much, and the door handle (to the bottom-left of it) hasn't been recolored in relation to the door. The man's complexion also seems somewhat unreal. All of this has to be put in historical context, of course, but you say that it is one of the "rarest worn in modern days", which suggests that it is still worn and could still be photographed, in colour, without the problems. Googling it turns up what appear to be a considerable number of photographs: 1, 2, 3. Has some potential as illustrating dress a hundred years ago, but that must surely be limited in context.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a "recolouring", this is a historical colouring. The colouring dates from 1895, before proper colour photography was available, and is one of the first techniques for mass reproduction of coloured photographs. Also, there's a difference between a Yeoman of the Guard and a Yeoman Warder. Unless they are at the Tower of London, they are not Yeomen Warders. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake, Adam. I'm now neutral because I'm not yet convinced of the historical EV. In terms of illustrating the uniform, there are still modern examples online without the albeit historical flaws above, e.g. the one here marked Ceremonial Dress less Shoulder Belt. That excluded, I'm not sure the EV of a Warder from c.1895 on its own. Some, but I'm not sure it's enough. Hence the neutral. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, no worries. One issue I do have to grant is that the Yeoman Warders article suffers badly from recentism. The organization has been around about five centuries, and the article is almost exclusively focused on the last 50 years. I suspect a properly-developed article would give this image more importance, but as things stand, I think it serves a purpose and at least begins to bring the history back a little. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Adam's clarification above, valuable historic photo anyway. Brandmeister^talk 13:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even if we can get a more recent photo of the same uniform, the fact that we have a photo of this uniform in use in a relatively historical setting adds EV. --Pine^✉ 05:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fairly good quality, high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Detroit Publishing Co. - A Yeoman of the Guard (N.B. actually a Yeoman Warder), full restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2013 at 20:20:51 (UTC)

File:Ruth arion painting for wiki.jpg

Reason

Demonstrates both the person and her profession.

Articles in which this image appears

Ruth Arion

FP category for this image

I don't know.

Creator

User:Michalella32

• Support as nominator --—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too small, questionable sourcing. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Incorrect licencing - the URAA tag confirms the suggestion the photograph's country of origin is Israel, yet there is no copyright tag relating to the work's copyright status in Israel, as required by the URAA tag. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Fails minimum size requirement of 1500px in width and height. Horrendously poor quality. Dusty777 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 00:03:47 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and resolution, featured on Commons, fairly underrepresented area.

Articles in which this image appears

Riin Tamm

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Kulpsoo

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice photo, but the EV is spoiled by the back-lighting of her head (which appears to have been done to create a scientist-as-hero type effect). If this could be removed the photo would have real FP potential. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't see the problems. Worst you could say is that it could be a smidgen sharper. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Nick-D, the back lighting of her hair ruins it. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my vote after reading Crisco's comment. I'm not willing to support because I still see it still detracts from the subject IMO but not enough to oppose. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Nick-D: staged photo, irritating back-lighting. does not illustrate anything useful. Also, the person illustrated seems to be borderline notable at best. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Illustrating an (ostensibly notable) person in an article about the person illustrates nothing useful? That is most certainly the most... unique... definition of EV I've read. If you think the person is not notable, AFD. If the article survives and the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia, it's notable for FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear hear. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Adam's comment. Freely released professional-quality portraits of notable people? Yes please. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Adam and Mr. Milburn. Just because her hair is glowing doesn't reduce the EV. Increases the visual appeal considerably IMO. Dusty777 01:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The hair light serves to separate her from the background. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Geneetik Riin Tamm.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 03:46:09 (UTC)

Reason

This is a very good perspective of both the Bode Museum and the northern end of Museum Island. The iconic Fernsehturm Berlin in the background is a good reference point. The image is high quality providing good detail, and is visually appealing.

Articles in which this image appears

Museum Island, Bode Museum

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

Der Wolf im Wald

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 03:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, interesting building... gazhiley 09:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, television tower gives a good Berlin signature. Some could argue because of the harsh shadow on the left side. Richard Bartz (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice detail, even on tiny bits like the statues on the roof. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Z 10:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Berlin Museumsinsel Fernsehturm.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 04:00:50 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent composition, well capturing the position of the viaduct in the landscape, its appearance, and use.

Articles in which this image appears

Cize-Bolozon viaduct

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Kabelleger

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 04:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nothing wrong with this that I can see... Interesting subject with the double level to it... gazhiley 09:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 09:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Gazhiley. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good catch. Richard Bartz (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dick Bos (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Nice size and decent lighting, but this looks grainy especially at full size. This is a good photo but it's not an excellent photo. --Pine^✉ 05:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 15:21:16 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Cherry tomato

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

Luc Viatour

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't the amount of whitespace on the bottom a little excessive? I mean, it's a great photo, but the crop could be improved, for en-wiki, anyway: I think French Wikipedia likes to use these sorts of images without borders, which would explain the more generous space around it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The photo looks alright to me but only the ones on the vine are in focus. Also there's nothing here that makes anyone looking at this thing "cherry tomato". They could be regular sized globe tomatoes so the EV isn't really there for me. And as Adam says, there's too much whitespace all around. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 21:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see the whitespace on the top and left, to balance out the whitespace needed to fit in the shadow on the right. But there's way too much on the right and bottom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The size of these tomatoes is the key feature and not apparent from the photograph. Colin°^Talk 12:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, size is one of the most awkward things to get in a photo. Unless you're including scale bars - and even then, for en-wiki, you probably need both centimetre and inches - you're left with a variety of extremely difficult-to-get-right things. For example, you could put them in a hand, but there's a reason the profession of hand model exists. You could use a coin... if you want to be both distracting and [Americo/Anglo/Fill in here]centric. I think the best thing to do here is to put them next to a regular tomato, but then you face issues: in Britain, an average tomato is about 2-3 inches (5-8 cm) across. In America, you often get the much larger beefsteak tomatoes, which are about twice that size. So, even then, not so simple. In short, I'm not sure people have thought through the difficulty of what they're asking for. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A size reference in the image page (like the one [in another FP candidate] would work. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it needs a bit of imagination but the "subject on white" shot completely removes any context. I wouldn't mind so much if this was a normal tomato but size is the key feature in order to give this EV. Colin°^Talk 15:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Clearly needs a crop. Oppose addition of scale. Kaldari (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 15:19:16 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

European Goldfinch

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Pierre Dalous

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice species and background. Brandmeister^talk 23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very sharp and nicely composed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Z 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful photo; exactly the kind of image we need on Wiki! Dick Bos (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 05:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice bird, nice picture, great EV ... what else ? --PierreSelim (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Carcar.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 07:22:36 (UTC)

Reason

A very nice Kurz and Allison lithograph of a notable Civil War battle

Articles in which this image appears

* Battle of Fort Sanders

• History of Knoxville, Tennessee
• Kurz and Allison (gallery)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History

Creator

Kurz and Allison, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support See no problems here... Excellent restoration. Dusty777 18:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Solid restoration and adds to the Battle of Fort Sanders article. Spencer^T♦C 04:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems to be the best image that we have for the battle, good image quality. --Pine^✉ 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kurz & Allison - Assault on Fort Sanders.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 15:40:10 (UTC)

Reason

A rare photograph of fog by a satellite. Significant and catchy image in the article

Articles in which this image appears

Fog

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

NASA, MODIS Rapid Response System

• Support as nominator --Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A nice find. Unusual view. I prefer the alt, though both are good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found a better image that was taken one day later, which shows denser fog. Uploaded it. Notifying you all about the changes. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in as an Alt. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was uploaded over the old photo, I see, so now it's the original. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think I mildly prefer the pre-upload-over one, since having that slight bit less fog results in a better composition for the image, instead of just a white streak. However, both would make good FPs. We can do a "which one" at the end of the nomination. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, uploaded it separately and have added it as an alt. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, interesting, I've never seen a fog from satellite. Brandmeister^talk 13:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support gazhiley 10:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's hard to figure out what's what, and at what scale, in that picture. Fog is defined as low-level cloud; it's not clear from the picture what level the cloud is at. It's a routine satellite photo, with nothing particularly interesting about it. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider comparing this image with the "Tule Fog" image found here. You can see the similarity in both images. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see the significance now, and I agree it's an excellent picture. I'll switch to Support, but from my euro-centric eyes, it's hard to appreciate the scale and location, so maybe the caption could be changed to something like "Dense fog over the Gangetic plains of the Indian Subcontinent, with the Himalayan chain to the north and the Bay of Bengal at bottom right, on ..."?. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the change in caption, infact it sounds better! Changing it right now. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The phenomenon can be verified thru this article here. Its reported that Runway visibility dropped suddenly from 700 metres to less than 50 metres on all three runways of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Dated 23 December 2012. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Source doesn't state explicitly that this is fog. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Evident Source - This image is the data by the India Meteorological Department, which shows Fog for 23 December 2012. This image provides an evidence that the image is of Fog cloud. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dense fog over Indian Subcontinent.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2013 at 10:36:21 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Steneosaurus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Z 10:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Might be a little over-exposed, though - the flash is visible at full res. But it does serve to make the fossil very clearly delineated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too soft. Barely any of it is in full focus. Dusty777 18:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Z. Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A wonderful picture. I'm no expert in the field, but it looks like a perfect specimen, and aesthetically it's a beautifully-prepared piece of work, nicely lit and photographed. However, it does have some streaky marks caused by handling, which is a pity. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose While this is a very good subject for a Wikipedia photo, the photo's clarity just isn't quite good enough for FP. Try for Valued Picture instead. --Pine^✉ 05:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Valued picture has been dead for over a year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - Soft, I agree, but can't think of a better picture for the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nobody's saying that this isn't a good picture for the article but it's not FPC quality in my opinion. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Might be on the limit in terms of sharpness, but has very high EV, excellent composition and is making the viewer want to know more. --ELEKHH^T 08:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File::Macrospondylus bollensis Holzmaden.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 68% support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2013 at 13:13:19 (UTC)

Reason

A rather nice, sharp photo that rather shows how it gets its name, the "Common Map". Saw this on Commons, quite liked it.

Articles in which this image appears

Cyrestis thyodamas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Cj.samson

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Upside down shot, I think butterflies generally look better with the head-on-top view. That can be fixed by flipping, but the right wing (from viewer's perspective) is probably damaged. Otherwise an FP-worthy species. Brandmeister^talk 15:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A poor specimen, with damaged wings. Distracting/confusing background - what's that, bits of straw? Background focus is inconsistent. And it's facing the wrong way. (Also, for anybody interested, the article is in serious need of cleanup) Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2013 at 07:01:34 (UTC)

Reason

Lead image for the article, good image quality and size, notable historical subject.

Articles in which this image appears

John Jay, Chief Justice of the United States, List of Governors of New York, Gilbert Stuart, United States Constitution, and others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Portrait by Gilbert Stuart, photograph by The National Gallery of Art

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 07:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice photo, resolution isn't amazing but is ample, realistic colours, good sharpness, interesting choice of subject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : good (and straightforward) EV, fine technicals. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid choice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV, pretty good quality and definitely worthy of being featured. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:John Jay (Gilbert Stuart portrait).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 05:55:49 (UTC)

Reason

The picture is of very high quality, and is one of the few free pictures available of Ricardo Arjona, as well as the more recent. It was taken on December 8, 2012 during the singer's concert in Nicaragua.

Articles in which this image appears

Ricardo Arjona

FP category for this image

People - Entertainment

Creator

Uploaded by Hahc21 from Flickr. Picture was taken by Jorge Mejía Peralta.

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Microphone in front if his face, the image you replaced your picture with (File:Ricardo_Arjona2.jpg) has more EV since more of his face is shown, so I'd recommend restoring the previous image. Finally it hasn't been in the article the required 7 days for a FPC nomination. — raekyt 07:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose terrible lighting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor lighting, poor microphone, can't tell who is behind the microphone! Spartan7W (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 08:14:11 (UTC)

Reason

Beautifully captured and lit image showing the historic church illuminated on a wintery night in inner city Melbourne

Articles in which this image appears

St Michael's Uniting Church, Melbourne, Collins Street, Melbourne, Melbourne

FP category for this image

[1]

Creator

Peter Novacco (on Flickr: St Michael's at night

• Support as nominator --Dodgedbullet (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unless there is a page for this specific church, then EV is tenuous at best for Melbourne and suspect for Collins Street, Melbourne. It's also not been in the article the required 7 days for a FPC to even begin, thirdly it's used in a gallery on Collins Street, Melbourne which is against criteria, and finally Melbourne is over-illustrated so you'd be hard pressed to find a good reason to keep it in that article, and I'd be surprised if one of the regular editors doesn't remove it. As for the content of the photograph, I think the tree infront of the image is too distracting of the subject, the night shot isn't ideal for illustrating the church, day-time would probably be preferred on EV grounds. — raekyt 09:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in the article for the church, actually. It just wasn't listed for some reason. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Certainly the best of the pictures in the article on the church; would prefer day, but this is attractive and avoids the very leafy trees that plague the day shots by shooting in winter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this is a tight site, the composition is overly cluttered due to the background of lit up buildings. Also, something weird is happening to the ANZ building in the background (distortion caused by the wide lens?). An equivalent daytime photo would have stronger EV. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's an odd picture... There seems to be random sections of distortion, as noticed by Nick-D, but also in the verticals of the main tower of the church - the bricks at the edge of the tower are angled to the right, but then when you get to the top the verticals are... well, verticle again... There's little sections of funny angles around the base too... I can only assume that this is a composite picture and unfortunately some of the individual shots were taken at an angle... As regards the background for me it can't be helped - that's what is behind the church after all... BUT looking at the right side of the background, it seems to have a clearer section as the tall buildings are further away - maybe taking this picture from a few paces to the left would solve the background issues? gazhiley 10:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 14:36:59 (UTC)

Reason

Another high-quality Google Art Project scan. As I quite like it, I thought I'd nominate it.

Articles in which this image appears

Les raboteurs de parquet, Gustave Caillebotte.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Gustave Caillebotte, photo by the Google Art Project

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very notable artist. Kind of surprised we don't have a FP for File:Gustave Caillebotte - Paris Street; Rainy Day - Google Art Project.jpg though, being one of his more notable paintings... hmm. — raekyt 20:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. They're very different works, save for both having that rather impressive use of light, so would show his range and development well, and we have articles on both paintings, so it's not like there's not enough EV for two FPs. Indeed, we actually have high-res scans for all four paintings by him that have their own articles. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not an artist I know, I'm ashamed to say. J Milburn (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting painting, high resolution. A little dark, but not overly so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather presumed the darkness was intentional - it's backlit by a single, indirect light source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but several Google Arts images have had issues with lighting so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice, high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gustave Caillebotte - The Floor Planers - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 03:05:55 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality large photo of the galaxy NGC 1097. I swapped this image from the gallery with the previous lead image because this image is sharper.

Articles in which this image appears

NGC 1097, Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

ESO

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Just, amazing. --@ツ KrIshnA^Talk2me 06:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Cool pic. Grain acceptable for astronomy images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But perhaps a few pixel should be taken off the left side to remove the bright stripe? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a bright stripe. What browser are you using? --Pine^✉ 18:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Look full resolution on the left. It's thin enough (and not THAT bright) so it doesn't show much smaller than full res. Actually, t°here's one top and bottom too, though not so much on the right. http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/iip/wip.php?f=NGC1097 - ESO - eso0438d.jpg Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked in my browser at full resolution and in an image editor with a zoom of over 1000%. I don't see any stripes. I tried to click on that toolserver link but it opens a blank page for me. --Pine^✉ 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not describing it well enough. It's not a well-defined band, it's an increase in the amount of (for lack of a better word) bright-coloured static. If you're zoomed in THAT much, you'll never see it. (though there is a band of that type just right of the small... companion galaxy, is that? - in the upper left. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - A little grainy for my tastes. I think the other NGC FPs are a little better-composed and some sharper. ceranthor 02:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 12:50:41 (UTC)

Reason

Repin is one of my favourite artists, but we've only recently started getting high-res versions of his most important work. As such, I would love to start to see him being featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, Ilya Repin, possibly others. Since it's also the lead image for Template:Cossacks - a usage not generally considered to "count" at FP, but one that puts it in dozens of articles - it's hard to spot other stand alone usages.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Ilya Repin

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps one of Repin's most recognizable paintings, but I don't remember that tiny brown border, is it a part of the canvas? If it's a frame, it should be cropped imho. Brandmeister^talk 13:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edge of the painting. Generally speaking, it's better to include a tiny bit of border than crop parts of the artwork out; Reusers can crop, they can't magically restore material, and the borders are almost never completely straight. One could argue that one could crop to minimise the border, but when this is actually done, it usually looks terrible, since you end up with irregular trianglular wedges where the border was very slightly not straight, instead of a what the eye perceives as a consistent border. Also, the history of painting FPCs show that paintings are often rejected for the tiniest crops. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, this is why, when doing restorations of artworks, I either leave a border (for reproduction techniques that inherently include blank paper around the image - you never quite get the same look when republishing such images if you don't do that) or, where cropping is appropriate, use restoration techniques to remove the aforementioned wedges caused by cropping to produce a minimal border. But it's generally accepted that while restoration is appropriate for mass-produced artworks (where any imperfections are likely not in all copies) and poorly-conserved images (where it's necessary to make them usable), but not for well-preserved paintings. If FPC thinks it appropriate, I could probably remove the border without loss of artwork, but there would be a small amount of least-significant-information new material. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support anyway. Brandmeister^talk 16:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Interesting image, although the bald gentleman's head nearly poked my eye out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We've had other paintings that have been cropped sans border that have been fine but I don't think the border really detracts from the image and it's a high EV good quality image. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; an interesting and rather eye-catching picture. Would look splendid on the main page. dci | TALK 04:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Repin Cossacks.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 18:30:57 (UTC)

Reason

Frankly, I consider it fairly obvious. the L. Prang & Co. series of images are considered some of the most artistic depictions of the American Civil War. I'm rather considering just going down the sequence.

Articles in which this image appears

Pickett's Charge, Battle of Gettysburg

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War. Yes, that doesn't exist. But by my count, we have 13 images so far, including two on the Lincoln assassination. 15 if you count the Lincoln election campaign, and they're divided between USA History and other wars. That's nearly as many as WWI has, and I have approximately 7 more images of the ACW sitting on my deviantArt account, waiting to be brought over. =)

Creator

Thure de Thulstrup, lithograph by L. Prang & Co., restoration by User:Adam Cuerden.

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The border note in the lower right corner says it's a facsimile. Original image may be more appropriate, unless it's lost. Brandmeister^talk 21:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't mean what you think it does: It was the way lithographs were described at the time. This is a lithograph based on original work by Thulstrup, which makes it a facsimile of that, but this is a very famous and iconic series of lithographs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a serious issue for me anyway, the original (if it survived) may just have a bit more detailed look at full size, assuming oil on canvas. Brandmeister^talk 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only source I found said private collections and almost never on display anywhere. In any case, I think we're in a situation a bit like Hogarth here: While the original painting exists in some cases, the lithographs (engravings in Hogarth's case) are the iconic images that are used everywhere.
      • It's also slightly annoying that the lithograph of the Civil War I nominated last cruised through FPC, but the lithograph by one of the most artistic and talented lithographic firms to have ever existed is considered so good that people are rejecting it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- the image is quite dark, both full size and as a thumbnail. Even the white smoke in the centre is a rather dark shade of grey/brown. Celuici (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. A fair point. I do suspect the iamge is meant to be a bit dark - I adjusted it against the uncropped image, so know it's about this relatively darker than whatever they set it against - but it may well be a bit too dark. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going tot go ahead and withdraw the nomination so I can restart it with better levels. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination was withdrawn. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 20:02:01 (UTC)

Reason

It's an excellent reproduction of a very dramatic painting

Articles in which this image appears

The Execution of Lady Jane Grey, Lady Jane Grey, Paul Delaroche, 1833 in art, History painting, Tower Green

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Paul Delaroche

• Support as nominator --Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dramatic, I saw this image before. Brandmeister^talk 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent find. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Encyclopedic and beautiful. ceranthor 05:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Possibly the most beautiful painting I've seen at FPC this year. The subject reminds me of RFA, except we get seven days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality; picture would be fine for the main page. dci | TALK 04:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:PAUL DELAROCHE - Ejecución de Lady Jane Grey (National Gallery de Londres, 1834).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 06:33:14 (UTC)

Reason

Bharatanatyam is a classical Indian dance form denotes various 19th and 20th century reconstructions of Sadir, the art of temple dancers.

Articles in which this image appears

Bharata Natyam

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Jean-Pierre Dalbéra

Boing-boing

• Support as nominator --@ツ KrIshnA^Talk2me 06:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to say this, since the topic would be an excellent choice for an FP, but this image is below the minimum size requirements for Featured pictures, and is a bit blurry atop that. I don't suppose there's any chance of a video of such a dance, which, if reasonably well-shot, and using music that wasn't in copyright, would likely sail through FP. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice framing, but lighting is really off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice subject/idea, but technically very poor. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I rather like the picture's artistic elements and its portrayal of the subject is quite nice. Sure, the iffy lighting's a problem, but I don't think it should disqualify the image altogether from FP. dci | TALK 04:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the size requirements for FPs are a reason it shouldn't be an FP: It's only about 2/3rds the minimum size. =/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 08:18:15 (UTC)

Reason

Good image quality. Has EV

Articles in which this image appears

Lego

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Cmglee

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 08:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Issue: The measurement from centre of one nib to the other nib (P=8 mm) runs afoul of the perspective, with the line meant to point to the right nib blending into the side of the yellow lego. The 3.0 mm label just below it also appears very slightly off. Perspective is rather forced, but that's probably to the image's advantage, so let's let that pass. I realise this is a tiny bit nitpicky, but, after all, the point of SVGs is that they can be tweaked easily. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a few small issues with these. I think some of this "P" and "h" stuff is confusing, and even when you look carefully at what each represents, it's not clear how they're linked. Why does the difference between the centres (P) relate to the width of the brick (lower right) or height of the brick?

Also, I think the choice of bricks is also confusing. The red one is "thin" in the context of Lego, but it's only because I have a working knowledge of Lego I wasn't tempted to assume the red one was normal height and the yellow one tall. The truly typical Lego brick is either two-by-two, yellow thickness, or four-by-two, yellow thickness. I think trying to do everything in one picture makes it a bit confusing to a casual reader - this is Lego we're talking about! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose: While very interesting, the equations and P and h information clutters up the diagram and makes it difficult to follow. Spencer^T♦C 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Interesting yes, but the defects of this diagram are not minor 'issues' at all. It's a confused representation of a simple modular relationship. H = 1.2 x P is not actually relevant, it doesn't have any effect on the basic ways that Lego bricks can be assembled. It's far too difficult to work out from this that the spacing between bricks is 0.2mm. The basic brick is the 2 x 4 stud and as the only diagram in the article that ought to be the starting point. Graphically this has a fatal flaw (not nitpicking at all but absolutely basic): there is no reason this has to be an isometric, so choose an view that enables the distance between studs to be dimensioned without ambiguity. The dimensioning is clumsy and crowded: give the dimension lines more space, scale the arrows to suit the smallest dimension, position the text consistently and especially make sure it never touches the dimension lines. ProfDEH (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This looks like a very competent 3D drawing so it shouldn't be difficult to change the viewpoint and indeed to show a larger brick as well. It's not perspective, this is an isometric drawing which is absolutely normal for this kind of diagram, but it does set up a conflict with the dimension lines. A different projection would resolve that. Incidentally, the other images on the article are surprisingly poor, a challenge for any Lego enthusiasts out there? ProfDEH (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is the "LEGO" logo at the correct angle as depicted in this perspective? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes ProfDEH (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 14:03:57 (UTC)

Reason

Full of EV, High Quality, FP in Commons, labeled Quality images and Valued images.

Articles in which this image appears

harlequin beetle

FP category for this image

Creator

the creator of the image, where possible using the format Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I love the image, but it's poorly used in the article. Maybe if we swapped the lead image and this one's locations? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Eye-catching beetle plus scale bar. Brandmeister^talk 21:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have to agree with Adam in that the image should be the lead and that horrible image that's currently the lead should be destroyed with fire but it's still good EV and it does a good job of showing the subject. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cat. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 14:55:53 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Vyborg Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could do with a facelift, but the appearance of the subject can't be helped. Good picture, no noticable issues that I can see. gazhiley 08:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks awfully bright. The original was better, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No, I find the original a bit dark, but I suppose both are fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Strange, I thought I had already voted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose parts of it look awfully soft (see near the water edge) and I'm not sure if it's the contrast or just it being so bright but it loks very off, there's no way I can support this. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thank you Tomer for this nomination! --A.Savin (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure. Tomer T (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vyborg 06-2012 Castle 06.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 15:45:30 (UTC)

Reason

Shows the entire column down to the base, the resolution allows to see individual reliefs.

Articles in which this image appears

Trajan's Column

FP category for this image

Artwork/Others

Creator

Franjuan

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 15:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Beautiful image, but why is there a giant dark wedge on the right hand side? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, suggest Speedy Close Due to big issue with picture ie large chunk missing from right hand side. Plus this angle is poor - no idea what is on the top of the pillar at this angle. There are high buildings around this as evident by the background, so surely a more elavated (and complete) picture can be taken. gazhiley 08:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. I don't think a speedy close is necessary. Someone might like this. Dusty777 16:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it wasn't for the missing bit, I'd gladly support; as it is, that's an awkward flaw for a replacable FP to have, and it's not like this is a Mars Rover composite or other situation where there's no chance of it being done over. Tempted to try using restoration tricks to fill it in, but I'd need reference pics. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me that dark wedge is purely an aesthetic issue since it's not a part of the column and doesn't obstruct its view whatsoever. Brandmeister^talk 17:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes, and I wouldn't suggest removing it from any articles, but Featured pictures kind of requires paying attention to aesthetic issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 04:26:50 (UTC)

Reason

Lead image for the article Skylab, good EV and good size. It's not possible to get a photo with a more modern camera because Skylab no longer exists. I thought this was a featured picture already!

Articles in which this image appears

Skylab, NASA, 1970s, 1979 in spaceflight, 1973 in the United States

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

NASA crew of the Skylab 4 mission

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 04:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not the sharpest, but as per nom, not as if we can get a better picture... gazhiley 08:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to Support either version. I like the look of the alt, but I agree that the crop is better from a nom point of view as it is more focussed on the Skylab. gazhiley 09:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Stunning, shortcomings mitigated by age and irreplaceability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Obvious EV. ceranthor 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with a qualification prefer Alt - Obvious EV, quality is good enough for the year. However, I far prefer the original crop. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the alt and would also support that version. It shows more context which I agree is helpful although the station itself appears smaller in the thumbnail. Does anyone else have a preference? --Pine^✉ 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the crop, as the focus is on Skylab. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I prefer the alt because I think the context adds EV. I like the aesthetics better also. --Pine^✉ 19:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. It's a much better-composed picture, and actually contains extra information since the curvature of the earth gives the approximate height (give or take a bit if there's any distortion from the camera) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt, much more interesting picture. Chick Bowen 06:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Skylab and Earth Limb - GPN-2000-001055.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 04:43:44 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of high quality and provides a compelling overview of an uncommon engineering solution, part of a World Heritage Site.

Articles in which this image appears

Brusio spiral viaduct, Spiral (railway)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Kabelleger

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 04:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great find... Lovely photo, no noticable issues that I can see with it, and it made me read the article about it and the Bernina Railway, which is always a good sign of a captivating picture... gazhiley 08:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great view of the viaduct, but rather a strange solution... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely deserving. What are those three weirdly-shaped structures inside the spiral, though? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're sculptures - the spiral is part of the area covered by the recent project in which Google mounted streetview cameras on Swiss trains, and they're visible here. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator reasons. Alborzagros (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Amazing composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good composition and high EV. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RhB ABe 4-4 III Kreisviadukt Brusio.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 05:32:18 (UTC)

Reason

A lovely example of early 20th-century theatrical posters; only image we have for the subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Indian rope trick

FP category for this image

Either Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment.

Creator

Otis Lithograph Co.

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Having restored a number of posters, I can say that this looks masterful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Brandmeister^talk 21:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sweeping and colorful. dci | TALK 04:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice and the fact that it's rare (one of a kind even) makes it even more special. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thurston, the famous magician - East Indian Rope Trick.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 06:26:21 (UTC)

Reason

High-res, clear shot of a European bee-eater feeding (plus his friend). Great EV, unfortunately only just added to the article.

Articles in which this image appears

European bee-eater (under feeding)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Pierre Dalous, Commons User Kookaburra 81

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 06:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wonderful. The focus isn't 100% perfect on the feeding one - likely due to motion blur - but his friend makes up for that by giving us both a very sharp image, AND an action shot. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator reasons. Alborzagros (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why is this called "merapi.jpg"? Merapi doesn't indicate anything  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd assume it has some meaning to the nominator. It could be a foreign word. But there's not really anything wrong with it. ceranthor 15:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the stink the Girls' Generation pic has continued to raise, naming is certainly a consideration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want, I have mover rights on Commons. Just give me the exact file name that would be preferred. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Something like "File:Pair of Merops apiaster feeding.jpg" or something of the likes. Merapi seems to have been derived from Mer-ops api-aster, but that's certainly not a scientific name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sharp and interesting, colourful (the old nom template is broken though) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Old nom template"? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, found it and fixed it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, the commons' FP nom — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb picture. It nicely shows how the neck gets deformed to catch hold of the prey. Great quality and high EV picture.BNK (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. The bee in mid air is pretty cool. Dusty777 01:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hate to be a spoilsport, but there's something odd here. Can anyone explain why a bee (maybe it's a wasp) would be flying upside down? Hmmm, so quite likely it's staged, with the bird being fed with a dead insect, as it does look quite dead. And frankly what are the odds anyway - an insect just happening to fly along to be caught by a bird sitting on branch (together with its mate) while a photographer also happens to be there to take a photo. I guess this doesn't preclude its promotion but does considerably lessen the EV - the article for example states "bee-eaters predominantly eat insects...which are caught in the air by sorties from an open perch". Clearly not what's happening here, so not a demonstration of how it would feed in nature. An explanation would be nice. --jjron (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.Hello. Some explanation. First, the file name Merapi: it is a code usually consisting of the first 3 letters of the genus followed by the first 3 letters of the species. This code is used when studying the population biology of birds.

- Yes the insect is dead. The Bee-eater is a bird that capture its prey in fly, and then settles on a perch. When there is on a wasp, he taps his prey on the branch to remove the sting ! Finally for swallow, he launches it into the air. In this photo, the male who has captured the prey will eventually offer it to the female beside him. Thank you ... sorry for my english.--Kookaburra 81, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Dalous. Your pictures are beautiful. ceranthor 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a fair explanation. It would be nice to get a WP:Reliable source that would verify this and then prior to promotion this information should be added it to the feeding section of the article (and image page) to explain it for readers, and so that the article and image gel. Important also if it only applies to wasps. Good work otherwise. --jjron (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support High quality picture, very interesting scene.--ELEKHH^T 21:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 17:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A nicely-captured scene, with great timing. Can be improved if it's slightly sharper. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 09:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pair of Merops apiaster feeding.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2013 at 06:33:48 (UTC)

Reason

Nominated last year and nearly promoted. Solid composition and lighting, high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Kabelleger

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice composition and high EV. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I voted weak oppose at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SBB-CFF-FFS Re 460 when this was last here but I have reconsidered again. I hope for better clarity but I think the EV outweighs the softness issues. --Pine^✉ 22:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Pine, a little soft, especially as you go further down the train, but EV is high enough for a little support... Given the lack of apparent boundries around the track I would suggest that this is retaken when possible, and we can DL&R (if this passes). gazhiley 09:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Given the snow being scattered by the train's movement, the softness is probably at least partially natural. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:SBB Re 460 Schottikon alternate crop.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2013 at 06:42:20 (UTC)

Reason

Quality reproduction of a notable painting. Nominated last year but received little commentary.

Articles in which this image appears

The Jewish Bride, List of paintings by Rembrandt, 1667 in art

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Rembrandt

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks pretty good. Dusty777 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The picture's not particularly vivid, but a nice bit of sentiment fused into the painting and the seventeenth-century aura would make a nice touch on the main page. dci | TALK 04:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not really my favourite painting, but notable and well-reproduced, or at least as well as one can given all the cracks that reflect light (I guess you could do some equivalent of focus stacking to get around that with a special multi-flash-angle camera, but proposing that people use not-yet-existant technology isn't really something we can ask for in FP.) And it has its own article, so definitely has strong EV. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Adam. Not an amazing painting, but notable enough and a good reproduction. Kaldari (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Portret van een paar als oudtestamentische figuren, genaamd 'Het Joodse bruidje' - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 08:45:38 (UTC)

Reason

A useful illustration for the copyright law of the Victorian era, rather good for showing how the modern international copyright regime came about. Plus, it's a really fun piece. And it passed Commons on the rule of the fifth day, where if you get overwhelming support, it can close early, so I think it might just be a good one. Compare to the unusable original scan!

Articles in which this image appears

[In no particular order]

• Copyright
• The Pirates of Penzance
• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
• Joseph Ferdinand Keppler

FP category for this image

[Undetermined]

Creator

Joseph Ferdinand Keppler, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: I see the artistic merit, but I'm just slightly hesitant on EV at the moment. The article Copyright does not discuss the phenomenon and the mention in The Pirates of Penzance is fleeting and in reference to history/context. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works does have a short mention, though, and there is some worth in Joseph Ferdinand Keppler as an illustration of his work. It is certainly very close and I'll have a think about upgrading my support. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember that side boxes don't have to directly reference text - they can be as useful or more when they expand upon it. The situation was the main reason for The Pirates of Penzance premièring in America, and the image - and the description of it - helps give some context in the Copyright article for why international copyright agreements were forming, so I think, in both cases, they serve to help the reader understand the article a bit better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Boy, you've worked hard on this, Adam. The page break in particular must have presented a lot of problems. Scheffel's face looks a little distorted, but that's not at all surprising. Obviously you've brightened this to deal with the yellowing of the paper, but I wonder if you've pulled the whites a little too far. There's a little bit of bright white in the waistcoat and moneybag of the pirate, which looks like it should be closer to the yellow of surrounding areas. I'll probably support this even if you don't make another edit, though. Chick Bowen 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, those are meant to be white - I think these images use white ink for really bright parts. Though maybe I'm not sure where you mean. Can you indicate?

As for Scheffel's face, I mentioned I had 2 or 3 complete false starts. Scheffel was responsible for a couple of those. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the money bags are a good example. They are partly yellow and partly blank--where there is no yellow shading, I think they are supposed to be the color of the paper. This would seem to distinguish them from the white ink used for, for example, the pirate's shirt and hat. At least, that's my take from looking closely at the original. Chick Bowen 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's shading. It gives them shape and dimension. At full resolution, that's very obviously lithographed yellow ink. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason we're not understanding each other. Yes, the shading is yellow ink. I meant the white parts that aren't shaded. Chick Bowen 06:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an image annotator tool on Commons. Why don't you mark the areas? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support after further discussion on my talk page. It's not how I would have done it--I don't see the historical accuracy in assuming zero paper color in the original--but it's something that falls reasonably under discretion. Just as we have different styles of photography in FP, we have different styles of historical restoration. Chick Bowen 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? I rather presumed the paper would have some colour, but when I started adjustments, the ones that made the most sense didn't have much. I do know from other work that Puck tended to be on white paper, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd say the EV is higher than it may appear as the position of the US as a pirate nation generated a considerable fuss back in the day.©Geni 14:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good historic value, nice restoration. --Pine^✉ 19:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration and EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Joseph Ferdinand Keppler - The Pirate Publisher - Puck Magazine - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 08:31:13 (UTC)

Reason

Good technical quality and excellent composition capturing the bird in natural habitat, and illustrating feeding behaviour.

Articles in which this image appears

Common Kingfisher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Pierre Dalous

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 08:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's a wonderfully sharp image. I added it to the Kingfisher article, too, and requested a move on commons. ceranthor 02:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent shot --Fir0002 10:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJ is right about the odd thing at the white ear coverts - don't know about the paint brush tool, but definitely something not quite right there. Which is a shame - even if that region was blown, it would be a minor defect in an otherwise great shot. Don't think there's anything significantly wrong with the chest coloration though, it seems within the range of natural variation (?) --Fir0002 02:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I do get a different subspecies here, so that is possible. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It sure is, at thumbnail. But the full sized image has some weird problems. For example, the white ear coverts look really strange. Almost like an attempt to mask blown highlights with the paint brush tool or something. I think the shadow-highlights tool has been used a bit much too - the chest should be chestnut, not dirty brown. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Not entirely sharp, and it can be centralised more. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 09:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I disagree with Arctic Kangaroo about the composition- I think it's fantastic. However, I do agree with JJ about the weird editing. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wow, that is weird editing, or something. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination, given the digital manipulation. Please feel free to speedy close. --ELEKHH^T 02:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination was withdrawn Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 12:37:43 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Whimbrel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Andreas Trepte

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not too shabby. I do sense an oncoming discussion concerning the visibility of it's feet though. Dusty777 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 17:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not bad, though a little noisy. At first I was going to proclaim that the ID was wrong, but then I realised I'm used to the non-breeding plumages generally found in my areas of experience. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Don't mind the feet or noise — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A superb image. Sharp, great detail, the right angle, and good DOF. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 09:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe in copying and pasting the nominators support code, you forgot to remove 'as nominator'Abudhar (talk)
• Support As per crisco, noise for me, is the last thing that should deny a picture featured status if its EV is high. Feet would have been nice but I feel even without it it sure is high EV.Abudhar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I get this odd feeling looking at it that I have no idea if it's 10cm or 50cm tall.But that doesn't detract particularly, I just thought it was interesting! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This looks good as a thumbnail but it's far too grainy at full size. --Pine^✉ 19:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 08:01:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image, well depicting the gothic cathedral in its urban context.

Articles in which this image appears

Narbonne Cathedral

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Benh LIEU SONG

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 08:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality... A few shadows on other buildings can't be helped given the location - I'm impressed that the creator managed to get this good a view! gazhiley 08:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wish I could do it that sharp. Great view, high-end quality. --A.Savin (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 17:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not crazy about the busy foreground but considering the location it's inavoidable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 19:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest cropping the bottom. --Pine^✉ 21:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the bottom bit. It's an attractive extra bit of context. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's quite badly underexposed. Fixable though. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm not liking the lightning at the walls and the position of the shadows, but given the odd location of the cathedral... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Look like it's worth a thousand words to me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit 1 Jujutacular (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Narbonne Cathedrale Saint Just et Saint Pasteur.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 18:57:15 (UTC)

Reason

It has good color, good perspective

Articles in which this image appears

Truckee Tahoe Airport

FP category for this image

WikiProject Aviation

Creator

Spartan7W

• Support as nominator --Spartan7W (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While an interesting look at the runway (and what appear to be ski runs on the mountains in the background), the image is detracted from the foreground of the camera location being featured prominently in the image. I think a side view of the landing also might have had more enc than this current view. In addition, it seems that the image might be tilted. Spencer^T♦C 07:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment The dashboard being in view is a matter of giving perspective for the landing, not just the runway. --Spartan7W (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might be true, but there's no way for a person viewing the image to know that is a landing, as opposed to the view from a structure there. A better perspective for a landing would be a side view that shows the vehicle landing. Spencer^T♦C 05:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Without you telling me it was a landing, I woulda just assumed it was a car driving onto the runway... I agree EV would be better from further away showing the landing... gazhiley 09:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the sort of shot that works better as video. It's a good shot, but very hard to get the necessary context in. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 22:49:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, notable subject

Articles in which this image appears

Judith Leyster +6

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Judith Leyster

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Soft at full size, Google Art version is better, but it's currently unused. Should be replaced IMO. Brandmeister^talk 22:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added as an ALT above. A lot darker though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a remarkable amount of variation in coloration and contrast among the various images of this painting online. Unfortunately I don't have a clear memory of it, though I know I've seen it at the NG. I'm not really convinced by either of these, sadly--one seems too high-contrast and the other too low. Chick Bowen 06:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Top is from the NG, bottom is Google (which FPC here seems to agree tends to err on the dark side). A mid-range version shall be forthcoming when I get to a decent connection — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you split the difference, I'll vote for it :) Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'll borrow the Mrs' modem... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt - I can believe those colours much more than the posterised ones. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt, but some brightness/contrast adjusment may be good. Brandmeister^talk 18:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try and get to a web cafe later. The Mrs' modem was only getting half the file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt --Pine^✉ 19:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt — raekyt 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Judith Leyster - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 01:33:32 (UTC)

Reason

High-resolution image, aesthetically appealing, only closeup at all image of the subject on Wikipedia or Commons, due to very high security around the embassy images of this sculpture are very difficult to obtain. N.B. first ever nomination for FP.

Articles in which this image appears

Embassy of the United States, London

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Gilderien

• Support as nominator --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this image has EV, I imagine that it would be possible to take a much clearer version of this photo during winter (when the trees will have lost their leaves) and with a camera with a long lens. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not at all convinced by the composition, I'm afraid. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per J Milburn Abudhar (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe that the picture was taken from an odd location: the two trees work as a distraction rather than a composition element (and they look blurry in full size), the position of the statue is not completely attractive (the angle is not oriented to an specific point of the camera, and its position close to the lower border of the image, as well as the left wing end hidden behind a tree, makes it look incomplete). Also, I'd have to say that the flag shouldn't be hidden by the trees, and the sky works against the intended depth of the shot. This is a good picture, but it has too many details to become a featured picture. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 02:44:16 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful, encyclopedic, and high-res.

Articles in which this image appears

Loligo forbesii

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs

Creator

Comingio Merculiano (see [2]), retouched by Citron (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as retoucher --Citron (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I realize it might not get support because the species is still around, but I think this picture is stunning. ceranthor 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I do quite like it, and I've nominated similar pictures myself. Could we perhaps improve the information on the image page? A full citation for the source, and, if possible, an explanation of what kind of illustration this is- painting? J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a lithograph to me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source itself isn't very clear, but I'm fairly certain it's a lithograph and will update the caption as such. ceranthor 23:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's not perfect, and this is a living and not-so-rare species, but it's a great picture, and the EV is decent. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we can do a D&R if we get something better. --Pine^✉ 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How do we know that the drawing is anatomically accurate? I've replaced a few drawings of similar age in other articles recently, and they are way off, in some cases. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The much more recent drawing at http://tolweb.org/Loligo_forbesii and a photo at http://www.megabook.ru/DescriptionImage.asp?MID=447561&AID=637007 which to me as a layman seem consistent with what's shown in the drawing here. --Pine^✉ 18:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm specialist of cephalopods,I always check the taxa.--Citron (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Loligo forbesii.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 13:48:01 (UTC)

Reason

This has high resolution and high EV and we currently have no other images of both erupting. It is a fundementally unpredictable event and this eruption was the first for 6 months. Q. - should I crop the bottom third of the image?

Articles in which this image appears

Fan and Mortar Geysers

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

Gilderien

• Support as nominator --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure I see the EV in having them both erupting at the same time. As such, capturing both seems to have come at a loss of capturing either particularly well, including the fact the right one appears cut off. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean the cloud of steam extending to the right? It was just drifting for a long way down the river and to capture the whole of it would require going so far back as to render the geysers rather small.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the reason for the cloud extending so far right? The left one doesn't have much/any rightwards drift. If it's a crack or something it should probably be considered part of the geyser. Nevertheless I don't think if you separate the geysers each is particularly well photographed, but my reason for merely commenting is that others may have other ideas, so I put it to them to consider. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there isn't a crack, I presume Fan geyser is slightly more sheltered as I checked my other photos and it was drifting in a different direction.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unless there's a bug with interlaced JPEGs and Firefox - I did wait until it stopped loading - this has a lot of JPEG artefacting, and a lot of chromatic aberration. A pity, as it's otherwise quite a good shot, but the camera isn't up to it. I know the pain of that: I would love to do photographic FPCs, but I just don't have suitable equipment for most cases. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 14:59:01 (UTC)

File:Sayyid ali Rizvi.jpg

. An Islamic Scholar and a descendent of the Holy Prophet of Islam.

Reason

Articles/stubs that now use this photo were previously without any photos, EV is high, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Muhammad Rizvi Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi Turban#Islam

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

hasin

• Support as nominator --hasin 14:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Small, unremarkable, noisy. Reflection in subject's glasses. Eyes not sharp. Distracting background. -- Colin°^Talk 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small: As per what criteria? FP criteria cite 1500px as minimum. This image is larger
  • Unremarkable: Subjective. Any person's photo can be unremarkable to someone who is not aware about that person. However, EV is still high and significant to those who look for information on this person. This photo is definitely remarkable Especially since the attire including the head-wear (Turban#Islam) is one worn by Sayyid's and islamic scholars.
  • Noisy: Subjective. I think the noise is invisible for all practical purposes, unless you magnify the largest size. At the largest size there is hardly any visible noise. Take a look at this FP for precedence
  • Reflection in subjects glasses: Hardly any reflection visible. More reflections are visible in other featured pictures here
  • Eyes not sharp: Only if you magnify more than the largest size. At the largest size eyes are sharp. Here is an FP precedence
  • Distracting background: I disagree. However, for argument sake take a look at this FP. I think the background in this picture is more distracting and busy but that did not stop it from being a featured picture.

I can provide more precedences, but for brevity, have just provided one for each point. hasin 04:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasin Shakur (talk • contribs)

Just because an opinion is subjective doesn't invalidate it. You are welcome to disagree.

• The minimum size criteria are only a a crude proxy measurement for whether an image is likely to be detailed enough or to print at large sizes. This 3.3MP portrait has very little detail and looks poor even at preview size.
• As portraits go, this is very unremarkable. I'm not commenting on the subject. Being unremarkable isn't a fatal flaw but isn't a plus point either.
• There is a lot of noise in this picture, which is hardly surprising if the EXIF data is correct that it was taken at 1100 ISO. That's simply an unusable ISO for portraiture, especially with that age of camera. The camera has had to apply such heavy denoising that there is no detail left: for such a close-up shot, I should be able to see the texture of the fabric and wrinkles on his face. But even the high denoising applied hasn't removed all the chroma noise (coloured splotches). While it is subjective whether a degree of luminance noise is acceptable, nobody likes chroma noise. The noise is visible even in the preview size. The Vishnevskaya portrait has very little noise and a lot of fine detail.
• Either there is reflection in the glasses or they are very dirty. Either way, it reduces the contrast at the eyes, which is vital for a successful portrait. The Fumihiko Maki portrait has tiny reflections that don't obscure the eyes.
• The overall lack of sharpness is due to the high iso and denoising, rather than focus error or poor choice of aperture. The Vishnevskaya portrait has they eyes in focus and there is a huge amount of detail: you can see all the lines and pores in her face. There's really no contest here.
• The Riin Tamm picture is an environmental portrait -- so the lab is as much part of the picture as the person. In contrast, this picture's brown curtains detract from the image.

You won't win an FP by arguing this one has some of the same flaws as other FPs. Some flaws aren't fatal and if the image had other redeeming features it might still succeed. In this case, the high ISO has robbed this picture of any detail and the noise makes it unpleasant to look at. Colin°^Talk 09:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Colin. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at my responses above hasin 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Please look at Colin's response to same. Moreover, the stoic and emotionless expression of this individual is so off-putting as to be a major negative and seemingly in stark contrast to his works. The centred composition is banal. The positioning on the coach is amateurish. The lack of context is aggravating. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. — raekyt 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per expansive reasons listed above gazhiley 09:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Certainly not a terrible candidate, to my eye, but I find the composition somewhat unremarkable. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find this candidate worthy because of its EV. I disagree with Collin as to his issue with size. The FCP criteria for size has been met(of course bigger is better). The serious look, IMO, adds to the image of a serious author whose authority is respected in his field of specialization. The hazed glasses seem to be just that and not due to lack of sharpness.Abudhar (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: above user only has 4 edits, all to FPC nominations. Spencer^T♦C 02:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment I would prefer though that the description refer to his specialties as opposed to only his descent(or maybe in addition to). He is a speaker and a prolific writer and published author.Can anyone make these changes or do we need noms/editors permission?Abudhar (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The framing should have been tighter and in portrait or wider I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Colin. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not really my area but I have to disagree even though this obviously isn't going to be featured. I actually find the composition rather striking, with the symmetry of his pose offset by the white couch, and I like the seriousness portrayed here. Surely you wouldn't want to see a smile.ProfDEH (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Colin / Saffron Apologies if my arguments against your points seemed personal. They were not. Frankly I am still confused by how the criteria mentions the minimum size but you mention that the size requirements are only a 'crude proxy measurement'. As to the points you made that i termed subjective, I did so to point to other editors that your points were subjective. I did not do so to mean that your opinions were invalid. As per your argument against precedences, I think precedences are important and should count. However, I meant them as examples since no two photos can be the same. I waited till the voting period ended to post this as I did not mean this to be an adamant defense but just a clarification of my points.

ProfDEH & Abudhar: Thanks for the support. I like the picture too :) hasin 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasin Shakur (talk • contribs)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 23:28:46 (UTC)

Reason

Huge 74 megabyte image with a size of 8736 x 5630, showing starburst activity in the galaxy NGC 4449. This is already featured on Commons and on Persian Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

NGC 4449, Caldwell catalogue

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA, ESA, A. Aloisi (STScI/ESA), and The Hubble Heritage (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 23:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment is it me or is it extremely noisy? or do the blue and red dots mean something?©Geni 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure most of those are stars. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although I do wish it wasn't so tightly cropped at the top. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is definitely among the best of our work. Such quality is impossible without the finance and equipment that NASA, ESA et al have access to.Abudhar (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raekyt 02:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Starburst in NGC 4449 (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 01:49:29 (UTC)

Reason

Snipes are often quite shy, and this is a fairly nice photo of this species. No other (categorized at least) photos on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Pin-tailed Snipe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Great work but I think this would benefit from some sharpening... --Fir0002 02:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to agree, so gave it a little. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. --Fir0002 02:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great image, as yours almost always are. Pteronura brasiliensis 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well captured with its habitat. --ELEKHH^T 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How can you be sure this is not Gallinago megala? --Donkey shot (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beak is shorter, tail doesn't project much beyond wingtips when folded, less white on the tail, more slender head. Pin-tailed is also a much more common record where the photo was taken. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does unfortunately not completely resolve my doubts. I would be glad to have an doubtlessly identified photograph of one of the two species (here is another one). But Oriental Bird Club annotates: Positive field separation of this species compared with Swinhoe's Snipe Gallinago megala is currently regarded as impossible, unless the spread tail is seen well or photographed, due to considerable overlap of field characters. I have not yet read the cited paper (I’ll try to get it) but the ID features from older literatur (e.g. Hayman et al.) may be quite useless. For I am no expert I am also uncertain if the lateral rectrices, visible in the photograph are of any use for identification. --Donkey shot (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I've been a little mislead by my books then. This reminds me of the White-capped Albatross vs Shy Albatross debate (there is even argument as to if they should be split). There, it is possible to tell if a bird is definitely Shy by yellow at the base of the culmen. But the converse is very difficult. Some suggest differences in the colour of a few of the primary flight feathers, but I don't think that is definitive. Morphometric measurements will give the right answer about 80% of the time. Anyway, Swinhoe is a rare record at the site where this photo was taken. Capture and release to band waders does occur there, so records don't just rely on field observation. So it is unlikely that I'm wrong. Fortunately, I think I have some mediocre quality flight shots. I can have a look at the tail when I get home from work to ease your concerns. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be great to get a 100% ID by additional photos. If not we should add a comment about how the bird was identified (+ the fact that megala is a rare visitor in this place, + a short note on the difficulties like OBC does) to the description of the image or/and copy parts of this disk on the discussion page there. I think that a proper documentation is important in this case so an author can decide himself about the use and caption in an article. I have already used the other photo in the article about Swinhoe’s in the German WP with an explanation of the id difficulties. By the way I do not question the quality of the image. It is great. --Donkey shot (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've looked through the other shots. I have a flight shot, but there were a few snipes around and I'm not 100% it was the same bird (it did have an appropriate tail I think though). However, carefully looking through the photos of this bird I think I have one or two shots where a feather or two of the 'pin-tail' are visible. So I'm pretty satisfied. I did get your email but I haven't had the time to respond to it. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Stunning photograph, but I would like to make sure we're certain of the ID. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Beautiful click. Mydreamsparrow (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Very nice shot, but I find that the background is a little messy. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if field distinction of the two species is next to impossible then I think we can be forgiven if we include this in the wrong article. We can move it to the correct article if we change our minds about the identification. JJ's identification seems well within reason and I'm sure he knows his birds a lot better than I do. --Pine^✉ 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gallinago stenura - Laem Pak Bia.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 01:55:26 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent wild photo of a Lar Gibbon. Most of the shots around are taken in captivity, and the resultant unnatural environments.

Articles in which this image appears

Lar gibbon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another great shot - excellent composition - but not entirely convinced by the WB... Seems a bit blue in the shadows? --Fir0002 02:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with either. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 a few pixels off the min req but not a big deal. Very nice composition --Muhammad(talk) 09:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 -- Colin°^Talk 17:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 and a welcome back to JJ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, honours at uni left me with zero free time for quite a while. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Excellent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either, prefer edit 1 High EV and aesthetically interesting. --Pine^✉ 20:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hylobates lar - Kaeng Krachan WB.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 01:55:58 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful and hard to see. Only found in dim light on the jungle floor. This and one other shot I took are the only photos on commons of the species.

Articles in which this image appears

Blue Pitta

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not super-sharp, but visually striking and I'm happy to take your word about the difficulty of the shot, which mitigates the possible quality issues. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I kinda prefer the other one. Any reason you chose to nominate this one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better view of the plumage on wings and tail. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright. Weak support on that account, although if this is a ground dwelling bird a picture of it on the ground would naturally have more EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (It's on the root of a tree) JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thought so, but not readily apparent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can be made apparent by adding it to the image description perhaps?Abudhar (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great pictures as always by this editor. Sharp, and can see the head clearly. Colours are also well balanced. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 09:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're not the nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Short for "I support as the nominator does", perhaps? Support as per the nominator would be the way that was normally said around here, Arctic Kangaroo! J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's was what I meant. Thanks for telling me, it's my first time voting here. Changed to support. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sharpness isn't great, but good enough given the conditions. Is it possible to tell if this is a male or female? Kaldari (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a male - the female plumage is duller, essentially. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article could do with a little bit of information, the like of which you have provided, and more.Abudhar (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nomAbudhar (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It looks like a flash was used and this was a high end camera to capture a subject that's found only in difficult conditions for photography, but I don't think that I can call this among Wikipedia's best work due to the sharpness issues. --Pine^✉ 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has some details but meh; great EV. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pitta cyanea 2 - Khao Yai.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 03:54:41 (UTC)

Reason

Another bird pic I'm afraid. A sharp pic that shows the bird in its normal environment.

Articles in which this image appears

Mute Swan

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

geni

• Support as nominator --©Geni 03:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if location is known (that pond or just country). The image description doesn't currently specify that. Brandmeister^talk 13:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

location added©Geni 02:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -Pine^✉ 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I prefer the alt, but both are good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree about the alt.©Geni 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mute Swan Emsworth2.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 14:08:12 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Torcal de Antequera, Karst

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Jebulon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nothing wrong that I can see - seems clear and sharp... gazhiley 09:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support A little grainy but otherwise generally good. --Pine^✉ 21:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's pretty good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The framing is too tight in my opinion, we don't get much context. I also wish it had been taken more towards sunset/sunrise -- the lighting is a bit harsh. Jujutacular (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 02:22:39 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality image, very well capturing the subject, with high EV in the article. I apologize to those disturbed by the image, but I decided to nominate it in line with WP:NPOV, which implies that we shouldn't avoid unpleasant topics.

Articles in which this image appears

Roadkill (since June 2012), Deer-vehicle collisions (added now)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 02:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was intending to nominate this myself sometime, so thanks for the nom Elekhh. EV is high, showing the animal in a gruesome but optional position in terms of conveying the message, the wreckage, and the murderous vehicles behind, with high quality including very good DOF control. I'll leave it up to others to determine whether it's suitable for the mainpage, but that's not an FP issue. --jjron (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but perhaps there should be a few words about possible decomposition signs (if any) to distinguish them from actual damage from the car. Brandmeister^talk 13:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Potentially slightly distressing, but a very strong photo with a good level of EV. Very well composed. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Cripes, er, Support. That's gonna be fun on the main page — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Clear wow factor. Reeks of EV for the topic... ceranthor 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oh my (hands to the mouth). As shoking as it's amazing. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've decided I quite like this. Chick Bowen 01:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC) And, like Crisco, I'm wondering what Howcheng will do with it. Chick Bowen 01:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Roadkill on Route 170 Okatie Hwy by the Chechessee River, SC, USA, jjron 09.04.2012.jpg --Jujutacular (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 01:07:55 (UTC)

Reason

A fine, interesting, attention-drawing contemporary illustration of the battle.

Articles in which this image appears

Battle of Belmont (1899)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War

Creator

Kurz & Allison, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The original on Commons doesn't seem to be working, but based on the version at LOC, I really can't imagine where you got these colors. In the original the individual clouds are clearly and rather gracefully delineated, in yours they are a speckled white mess. What happened to the muted pink in the sky? Where did you get that garish green? Chick Bowen 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "I forget because, although I redid it a bit, I started this a year ago, and the first save I have includes the colour changes?" going to fly as an explanation, or shall I withdraw and retry? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screw it, Withdraw'. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 16:19:52 (UTC)

Reason

A SVG conversion of a US military source, with much better aesthetics (if there are things to iron out, I shall do so). Also has some of the oddities of the original removed, including some odd spellings.* Strong EV; I would say "very strong" except there are alternatives (some of which lack sourcing information).

• For example, I mistook (as I expect readers would) the black line above Kiel on the original as the Danish-German border. It is, in fact, the Kiel Canal, which the new colour indicates.

Articles in which this image appears

Battle of Jutland and a dozen others about individual ships that took part in the battle.

FP category for this image

Maps and Diagrams

Creator

Grandiose from a US Military source

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the average state of maps on Wikipedia, I think this is easily amongst our finest work in this field. Support, barring the discovery of inaccuracies, or other significant issues. One suggestion, though: If you used an icon to indicate a sinking, it'd be more instantly clear what happened in some of the engagements. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, provided someone who knows a bit about naval history takes a look at this and is happy with it. I'm not really sure how these kinds of diagrams would normally be presented. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It got some comments when I posted about it here. That was before I made the latest round of changes, but may be of interest. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mostly commenting on graphics: (a) I find it confusing to see "1530" instead of "15:30" or "3:30pm", (b) probably no need to repeat "Battle of Jutland" 3x and the the North sign 2x; (c) the dot for London is missing, and Oslo could be marked on the map to help orientation; (d) For the main map, if the land area controlled by each side would be shown with different colour (and maybe occupied territories with a hatch) than it might be clearer it's a war map, and make the main map more interesting; (e) In this map appears, as in the article, that the German ships started from Wilhelmshafen, but that is missing from this map. Also in the linked map is listed how many ships were on each side, which is useful. --ELEKHH^T 10:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "1530" format is fairly standard for military reporting of times. I don't mind the repetition of the captions - I rather like it, truth be told - but think the city dots are a good idea, and the colours and numbers are a good idea. Though I suspect poor Grandiose may find him- or herself having to renominate after the feedback's dealt with. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (for the moment), Wilhelmshaven and other important or major cities in Germany are missing and the position of the Jade Anchorage is greatly imprecise. Its not north of the east frisian islands but within and directly north of the Jade Bight. Furthermore is there not a single scale, the most important thing in every map. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• New version uploaded - Jade Anchorage removed in favour of Wilhelmshaven; new source for that and passage between there are outside the mined area. Scale added to the upper right panel; "the most important thing in every map" sounds distinctly like my old geography teacher. The left panel has contextual detail that gives a very good sense of scale; I have used some trig to give me a scale in the top-right panel. That just leaves the bottom-right but I don't see as a major issue. I'm considering if the number of ships involved can be added without cluttering the map. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have you thought about include country borders and maybe colours for the territory controlled by Germany and the Entente as well as neutral powers? For the cities, why are there so many cities in the UK but all major industrial cities on the continent you could use for scale are missing? Another thing is, you should think about how you can mark the difference between admirals and ship names. Thats a little confusing. --Bomzibar (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do recognise a lot of the cities in the UK as major military bases. Folkenstone, Plymouth, etc. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Manchester isnt a coast city and as such no naval base. Furhtermore, the city-dot for London is missing and werent the actual areas where the fleets were stationed the Cromarty Firth and off Rosyth? The map should be precise with this. --Bomzibar (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The omission of London is of course a mistake I failed to correct, and have now done so. Ship names are in italics, although it the reader might not realise that Hipper and Scheer (which would, confusingly, go on to be ship names!) are Admirals, until compared to, say, Indefatigable, at which point most I think would realise. The fact that Scheer or Jellicoe are Admirals is the most likely reading of all three panels, and if this is not clear, it should be from the surrounding text: images should not present textual information under current guidelines. As regards cities and towns, very few directly contributed to the battle of Jutland itself, that much is clear. So the rest is the exercise of some discretion as to which of many are relevant to the reader; in doing so, I thought it was best to stick with the source. I added Wilhelmshaven because it was essentially a clarification of "Jade Anchorage" in the original; I feel a personal choice as to which places are relevant would be less than satisfactory. As regards land borders, I think it might do more to distract the the reader than assist him or her. The map does not show the whole of the UK or Germany (as was); the map would presumably also have to reflect (presumably) not just the 1914 border but the line of actual control at the time of the Battle. I'm not sure this image is suitable for displaying that information. Besides, reading the sources linked I'm not convinced it was a major factor. Having said that, I'm not wholly against: the historical context (i.e. the war rather than the battle) is important; however, it would mean colouring in the map I think, because the UK had no land border at the time. That could definitely detract from the readers' perspective. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 19:11:02 (UTC)

Reason

Frankly, I consider it fairly obvious. the L. Prang & Co. series of images are considered some of the most artistic depictions of the American Civil War. I'm rather considering just going down the sequence.

Articles in which this image appears

Pickett's Charge, Battle of Gettysburg

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War. Yes, that doesn't exist. But by my count, we have 13 images so far, including two on the Lincoln assassination. 15 if you count the Lincoln election campaign, and they're divided between USA History and other wars. That's nearly as many as WWI has, and I have approximately 7 more images of the ACW sitting on my deviantArt account, waiting to be brought over. =)

Creator

Thure de Thulstrup, lithograph by L. Prang & Co., restoration by User:Adam Cuerden.

• Note: Redid levels; restarting nom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, WB looks good to me on this one. Chick Bowen 06:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'd support the creation of an American Civil War category, but not placing the Lincoln assassination images in it, since the assassination did not occur during the war, which is generally understood to have ended on April 9. The 1864 election did occur during it, though it wasn't really part of it. How many US president images do we have? Is that worth a category? Chick Bowen 06:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. Those were a little tenuous. As for presidents, that might be a bad idea: There'd be a lot of ambiguity, due to things like does a picture of Grant count as a Civil War or presidential image; what about campaign posters for failed presidential campaigns, etc. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. Eisenhower too would be a problem. Chick Bowen 19:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fits well with my memory of the place. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- good work, the levels look better now. Celuici (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 04:05:37 (UTC)

Reason

Already featured in Commons, as well as on the Spanish Wikipedia, the image is one of the finest of its kind. It holds great encyclopedic value as one of the few images showcasing such landscape, and adds a considerable amount of visual understanding to the articles it appears in.

Articles in which this image appears

Gran Sabana, Canaima National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Paolo Costa Baldi

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Seems a little soft, but not to the point of distraction — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the focus not at infinity here? It's hard to tell in the haze, but I think the focal plane might be somewhere toward the foreground. Chick Bowen 06:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't exactly tell, but I might agree that it's toward the foreground. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Missing portion is not effecting the beauty of the picture. Mydreamsparrow (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The haze adds an interesting effect here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gorgeous. Jujutacular (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kukenan Roraima GS.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 06:23:08 (UTC)

Reason

Notable painting, sharp and interesting.

Articles in which this image appears

Olympia (Manet) +3

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Édouard Manet

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Are the colours right? The dark green curtaining and black cat blur a little bit together, for example. I know we've had Google Art one that have proven darker than expected before. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having never been to France, I cannot be certain. Most of the ones floating around the internet seem as dark, at least at thumbnail size and looking at the cat. 1, 2, 3. Has anyone here seen the painting in person? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent composition! :) If only we would have more FPCs with non-symetrical images of buildings with cat... --ELEKHH^T 09:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. It looks so dark and flat, almost monochrome. The maid is nearly invisible and the woman on the bed looks like a cadaver. Surely this can't be what it looks like in real life. I would be rather disappointed if a real life Manet didn't look more like File:Manet, Edouard - Olympia, 1863.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet that cat is still almost completely blended in with the background... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added ALTs — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original, support Alt 1 or Alt 2. Mostly because the original is just too dark, but I also have a hard time believing the colors are accurate (under normal lighting conditions). Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do remember the goal of an Art FPC is to reflect the original painting, not how we'd want the painting to look. This has its own article, so the EV is there.
  • Strong oppose Alt 2 - colours almost certainly wrong.
  • Neutral Alt 1 - may at least be plausible, given different lighting can change the look of a painting slightly, but there's no evidence for the changes.
  • Support original. Only one whose colours are set by people who know the painting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note, ALT2 was meant to be close to Kaldari's example. I much prefer the original myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I have no clue how to vote. Generic support, apply it wherever people who know what they're doing want to put it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT1, probably the best adjustment out of all three. Brandmeister^talk 12:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Edouard Manet - Olympia - Google Art Project 3.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 06:32:35 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, composition and EV. Image shows a bit of his typical dressing (shirt/Kurta) and his identifying beard and hair

Articles in which this image appears

Kumar Anish

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Framing not quite ideal (not have enough space on the right side) and it would have been nicer to get a bit more DOF as there's no need to blur the background on a photo like this, but otherwise well taken. Also, not directly related to this nomination, but on the article page, what is with the second photo of him?? It has zero EV as far as I can see. He's unidentifiable, he's doing something irrelevant to his notability, and the image caption (and image page description) mentions nothing of the significance of the image. I'd remove it but I wanted to ask if I was missing something first. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the DOF, unfortunately, this was not taken in a studio. I made him stand before a white wall and just had a simple flash bounced of a very high ceiling. I think the second image shows him doing some rope climbing exercises in a retreat near Nandi Hills, India. I have removed the that image. --Muhammad(talk) 09:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Charismatic portrait. The article could do with a spot of cleaning- a few more decent sources wouldn't go amiss. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Good snap.Mydreamsparrow (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As a portrait it is a bit weak on composition, but this is overcome by the good lighting, detail and a wonderful expression. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though it does need a little extra space on the right. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kumar Anish.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 09:39:43 (UTC)

Reason

The picture is very sharp and it is clearly showing all the parts.

Articles in which this image appears

Moth, Erebus_macrops

FP category for this image

Animals/Insects

Creator

Mydreamsparrow

• Support as nominator --Mydreamsparrow (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The framing could be better to allow the wings not to be cut abruptly. Uneven lighting due to strong straight on flash (shadow too). Signs on camera shake due to low speed used.Abudhar (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, the framing is far too tight for me. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone with file move permissions at Commons retitle this? Erebus macrops.jpg seems to be taken, so perhaps Erebus macrops indoors.jpg would be appropriate. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. First time I've ever done that. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with J Milburn Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The wall distracts the viewer from the main element (the Erebus). Although, the image looks amazing (not when in full size sadly). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 13:52:43 (UTC)

Reason

One of the most well known and reputable pharmacy schools in India. Good quality, EV and the students add a sense of scale. The image covers app 160(ish) degrees

Articles in which this image appears

Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy

Creator

User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 13:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Perfect short at perfect lighting. Mydreamsparrow (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Still has some minor details but overall, it is very balanced. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well balanced, fairly sharp — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice and clear and a quality picture. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy Block.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 18:59:51 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good composition, nice lighting, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Musée Ariana

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User:Gfuerst

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Beautifully composed, but a little too hazy at full size. I don't really know enough about the technicals to explain why, but it just doesn't compare in terms of sharpness with our featured pictures of similar buildings. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : Good but the shadow is badly effecting the beauty of the building.Mydreamsparrow (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree that the level of sharpness and detail is limited, particularly visible at the busts. The tree's shadow on the building is distracting. Furthermore in this case I think a view off the central axis of symmetry would have been much better, so that the flag doesn't obscure the dome, and the fountain doesn't obscure the main entrance. --ELEKHH^T 07:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, in particular J Milburn - almost seems out of focus to me... gazhiley 16:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lighting doesn't look natural. Is it HDR? Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 19:04:24 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Bay of Fires

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice colours, but limited EV as doesn't provide a good overview of the bay. This has much higher EV. The file should be renamed as is not in NZ. --ELEKHH^T 07:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shows a notable feature of this bay: the orange-hued granite. Tomer T (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that orange lichen is not characteristic of this bay alone but a larger portion of the coast of Tasmania, and the image does not provide much detail of it. --ELEKHH^T 09:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support A nice shot, but better if you can show more of the bay. Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 10:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The Wikipedia article isn't very well written. 'The Bay of Fires' may be used to refer to a region of coastline about 50km long, or a shallow bay around 30km long. Either way, it is not one beach like the image Elekhh links to. It consists of many beaches and rocky outcrops. I feel that this short is more representative of the coastline in many ways. Certainly better than calling one beach The Bay of Fires. See this map. The region usually includes Mount William National Park. Weak because it's oversharpened and oversaturated a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that is hard to assess EV with only a poor article at hand. Whether 30 or 50km long, Freycinet is probably not part of it, yet the same orange lichen extends further. Some would argue that the white sand beaches (not visible in the photo) is what is characteristic to the area. As to the merits of the detail, if you look at the image at full scale, is lacking detail, has a lot of reflections and is overprocessed. At small size looks nice though, and would support as a valued picture. -ELEKHH^T 11:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lichen aside, the granite itself is pink at Freycinet because of iron oxide impurities in the feldspar. The appearance is quite different if you look carefully. Empty white sand beaches are found all over the east coast of Tasmania and aren't particularly characteristic in my view. Most of the coastline of Tasmania isn't granite. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - The picture itself is fine, though the composition could probably be better. My objection is that it shows such a small part of the bay. I think Elekhh's objection is pertinent. ceranthor 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 19:07:48 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Church of Saint Ildefonso

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful. Shame about the red house in the background (unless that relates to the church somehow?) but I certainly wouldn't support removing it. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Those weirdly curved steps threw me at first, but as every other line is straight, I can only presume they really are curved. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stairs are curved as visible in the sat view. --ELEKHH^T 07:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That explains it! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Shades are effecting I think.Mydreamsparrow (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support With open doors would be more inviting, but overall good detail, and better than the previous candidate. --ELEKHH^T 07:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above gazhiley 09:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, not a fan of the lighting. If the photo had been taken at a different time of day, I think you could have gotten a more compelling photograph. Kaldari (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Iglesia de San Ildefonso, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 06:04:11 (UTC)

Reason

The image, which is already featured on two other Wikipedias, is an impressive high quality depiction of the exhaust cloud, result of the STS-130 launch. It's one of the finest of its kind.

Articles in which this image appears

STS-130

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

Sandra Joseph and Kevin O'Connell from the NASA

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The file is used on STS-130, where it does not "contribute significantly" – as far as I can see, the exhaust cloud was not notable in the context of the STS-130. Hence the rather solitary gallery usage. I agree it's a "impressive high quality depiction of the exhaust cloud" and might have a place in articles about rocket propulsion or take-offs, but it doesn't at the moment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the image to Solid-fuel_rocket#Performance. I was checking the article while gathering information (I am planning to make a list of space shuttles) and I believe it has a good place there. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 06:18:17 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of an impressive quality. Already featured on other Wikipedias, the image is a faithful photographic reproduction of the painting.

Articles in which this image appears

Language, Tower of Babel, The Tower of Babel (Bruegel)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Google Art Project

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too big, can't load. Nice that it has a tile load but it is to complicated for feature status in my opinion. If it was smaller and more usable for the average reader I would be all over supporting this. I love this painting.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to add that the tile load recieved a norton warning on my computer.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It loaded fine on my PC. Although it took a damn long time. I would upload a small version if needed. let me prepare myself to do it :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the image page, there is a link (in a pink box) to the "large image viewer" that lets you view such big images without downloading the whole thing. Colin°^Talk 07:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would NEVER want to promote a smaller version. HUGE images are better. As pointed out above there's tools to help people view it in a browser, or you can actually save it to your computer and load in Photoshop or similar for inspection, plus there's the links under the image for smaller versions as well. Big is good. Plus "to big" isn't a valid reason to oppose, so I'd recommend retracting the oppose. — raekyt 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, perhaps one of the most recognizable Bruegel's paintings (and of Babel tower as well). Google Art digitalizations are almost always no-brainers. Brandmeister^talk 12:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, how many gigapixels is this now? Still one? Wow... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Clear EV. I don't think I've ever heard a complaint over an image being too big... ceranthor 21:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fabulous picture of a masterpiece. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raekyt 14:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project - edited.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 15:49:59 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, beautiful photo, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Speicherstadt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Der Wolf im Wald

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Fauban 17:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good picture, the lighting works out really well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose While the photo is aesthetically interesting, I think it's more suitable for a Commons FP than an English Wikipedia FP. For an FP for this article I would much prefer an aerial shot or a panorama. --Pine^✉ 07:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Speicherstadt abends.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 15:58:10 (UTC)

Reason

Fascinating panorama of a notable place, the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Wulingyuan. Good sharpness and size. Cons are the CAs in some places and the article itself, but overall I think it deserves to be featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Wulingyuan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Chensiyuan

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like we don't have an article on the peak itself. Once it appears, I'll support the image (interesting landscape, reminding those in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, although slightly blurry at full size). Brandmeister^talk 23:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big size, impressive shot and cut. A bit of additional light would suit well in the composition, but I am comfortable with the picture as it is. This one is also a very good shot too. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, excellent work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely. Jujutacular (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally gotten to view this at full size, I do have some comments to make:

1. It's a bit grainy at full size, possibly due to JPEG artefacts. However, full size is gigantic, so this issue can be safely ignored.
2. It has an embedded colour profile. This may come back to bite us later due to all the bugs with image processing on Wikipedia (Wikipedia's coders are fairly incompetent on this issue; you may have noticed they still haven't fixed PNGs 10 years on), but it seems alright at present.
3. The large size is a bit of a killer for image processing. Even the flash zoom tool breaks when trying to deal with it, at least on my computer, which is somewhat old. However, downscaling is justifiably controversial, even for somewhat grainy images.

Conclusion: I Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wonderful panorama. - Darwinek (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'd strongly prefer a photo that doesn't have the sharpness issues that this one has, but I agree with Adam about the size mostly making up for that. --Pine^✉ 07:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:1 zhangjiajie huangshizhai wulingyuan panorama 2012.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 23:19:32 (UTC)

Reason

While not the most artistic of posters, it's a rare example of an Irish WWI recruitment poster - there aren't that many of them available. Indeed, before this file, the entire article Ireland and WWI had no illustrations.

Articles in which this image appears

Ireland and World War I

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/History/World War I

Creator

Hely's Limited; restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be great if there were more real information in the "recruitment" section of the article, rather than just the raw numbers, and I'd love to know more about this poster as well. Who paid for it? Was it usual for a private lithography company to be identified so prominently in a public-interest ad like this? Were there a lot of posters like this? Were they effective? These are rhetorical questions; I'm aware that they're tough to answer without some more help from the LOC. By the way, I wonder if S.I. means that this was acquired through the Smithsonian? Very uncertain about that. S.n. usually means sine nomine and is used when the publisher is unknown, but that's very odd in this case since the name of the publisher is right on the poster. Anyway, weak support pending further information. Chick Bowen 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a few WWI posters, the majority were done by private lithographic companies, presumably on commission by the government. I presume it's cheaper and more convenient than for the government to keep a lithographic staff themselves, plus keeps the businesses from being hurt too much by the civilian paper shortages wars cause. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as article information is not entirely pertinent to FPC. S.n here may (but I'm not sure) mean that they aren't sure of the actual artist. The LOC also notes who the publisher was, so this is... a little weird. BTW, did you see the pupils on the second soldier? Very disconcerting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a cracker. --jjron (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Even if this image is public domain in the US, are there any Irish or UK copyright laws that might still give copyright protection to this image? --Pine^✉ 07:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why it's on en-wiki, not Commons. For En-wiki, only US copyright law matters. Now, it probably isn't in copyright in Ireland or the UK, but it's very, very hard to prove that, as it depends on when the [unknown and uncredited] artist died, or on making a claim of anonymity. In all honesty, if the LoC doesn't know the artist, it probably is fine under EU law (copyright terms are 70 years for anonymous works), but a little extra precaution never hurt. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of these days I probably should learn more about how international copyright law works. At this time I don't feel confident enough to support this image for FP, so I will vote reluctant neutral. --Pine^✉ 08:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do remember that only US copyright matters for En-wiki, and this is definitely out of copyright in America. We do have several featured pictures that are US-only. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 05:12:02 (UTC)

Reason

Spiderhunter are large members of the sunbird family. They feed on nectar and small arthropods. This shot gives good context, a sense of scale for anyone familiar with banana palms, and has pretty good image quality for the ambient light intensity.

Articles in which this image appears

Streaked Spiderhunter

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting angle, good composition. Brandmeister^talk 15:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Saw this on Facebook, enjoyed it there... seeing it in full size is just fantastic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture with good detail. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice one Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like that angle too, showing an interesting behavior of the bird. --Pine^✉ 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Arachnothera magna - Kaeng Krachan.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 05:14:40 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image showing all important identification information.

Articles in which this image appears

Spotted Redshank

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Lovely composition. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support impressive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very good picture, agree with J Milburn. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I wish that the bird was a little sharper in this image. The bokeh is nice but I would trade bokeh for a sharper image of the bird. --Pine^✉ 07:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tringa erythropus - Laem Pak Bia.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 05:19:46 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo of a nice bird.

Articles in which this image appears

Painted Stork

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A fine image of a rather attractive bird. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Stunning. ceranthor 21:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice capture, love the pink rump. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marvelous. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice and an ace pic Alborzagros (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love the water drops. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mycteria leucocephala - Pak Thale.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 09:40:10 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good product photography, can't let Nintendo have all the fun, license is as free as you can get

Articles in which this image appears

PlayStation Portable, PlayStation

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Blown highlights and blurriness, noticeable at full size on silvery edges. Since many folks have such things, I think that kind of stuff can be easily retaken. Brandmeister^talk 18:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A lot of the image appears blurry. Of note is the PlayStation logo in the top left. Compare it to the SONY logo at right or the crisp PSP lettering across the bottom. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 13:07:06 (UTC)

Reason

Good resolution. It's a diagram showing how grammatical gender works in general. I would be useful for people learning foreign languages, since many of them (Spanish, French, German, Russian...) have this characteristic, wich most anglophones find rather bizarre.

Articles in which this image appears

Grammatical gender

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Fauban

• Support as nominator --Fauban 13:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Regardless of everything else, this should really be an SVG. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, at full resolution, the cats look terrible. Pixellated and with bits cut off. While a pretty good diagram (a little children's-textbook-ish, perhaps, though that may actually be a strength); I don't think it can pass the image quality requirement. Another potential issue is that "gato" isn't just "he-cat", it's "generic cat" as well; indeed, part of the major confusion people have with grammatical gender is that it doesn't generally have anything to do with the gender of the actual thing being discussed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's not bad, but I don't think it represents our best work. The cartoon cats with color to represent gender distinction isn't ideal (blue and pink don't universally mean male and female). Would it be possible to use a photo of a male lion and a female lion instead? Just an idea. Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Adam is quite correct; "gato" does not refer to a male cat; furthermore, in general, the relationship between grammatical gender and biological sex in romance languages is rather abstract and indeterminate, so I don't think this is the best way to represent it. Chick Bowen 01:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, maybe using examples of animals was not a good idea, because the gender divisions are not clear-cut. Now I've put unambiguous examples.--Fauban 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt1 is much better, thank you. I doubt that the FP regulars will want to feature it, because they'll want it as an SVG instead of JPEG, but it's a great improvement for the article. Chick Bowen 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I really hate to be picky, but is Moto - a feminine noun ending in -o - too unusual of an example? Other than that, it's much improved. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, but not a killer I don't think. My Spanish isn't too great, but in Italian it's actually more common than one might think: la mano, il pianista (and lots of similarly constructed occupations--e.g. il barista), etc. The distinction is much more rigid for adjectives. I love it that we're discussing comparative grammar on this page; I don't think that's happened before. Chick Bowen 16:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, first, I've figured out how to convert this into SVG (Photoshop didn't recognize it)!! Second, those Italian examples you've put are identical in Spanish. What the article comes to say is that gender is an inherent (kind of "invisible") property of nouns, that only manifests itself in other parts of speech, like adjectives. Explicit gender marking in nouns (like -o, -a) is only optional, and in languages like German, somewhat uncommon. Thanks!--Fauban 17:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think something went horribly wrong with the conversion to SVG. Also, while I agree for most languages that's true, Spanish is rather more commonly explicitly marked; and if we weren't using Spanish, we'd probably need to bring in the neuter gender. On the other hand, it doesn't hurt the educational value, so maybe I'm overthinking. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fauban, you should download Inkscape. It's free! Chick Bowen 01:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I really wanted to put "moto" to stress the inherent quality of gender. In that part of the article, gender marking is not discussed at all, just gender agreement (that's what the black arrows represent). But is so many people object, I can put "motocicleta" instead. Oh, and is the SVG still displayed wrong? It looks fine inmy laptop.--Fauban 19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Regarding the alt, I'd prefer a less pathological example than moto, i.e. a feminine noun should end in an "a." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be best to withdraw and restart this nom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 17:21:13 (UTC)

Reason

An attractive and historical advertisement for a notable product, which has been in the article in a highly inferior version for at least a couple years. In this case, two of the three main points used - purity and floating - are still major aspects used in the product's advertising, which is pretty good for a century-plus-old advertisement campaign, and thus helps vividly illustrate that aspect of the product's notability. Article could be a touch better.

Articles in which this image appears

Ivory (soap)

FP category for this image

Anyone have a better idea than Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle?

Creator

The Strobridge & Co. Lith., for The Procter and Gamble Co. Restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support attractive poster, good restoration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful print and restoration. I love the EV -- "It floats". Jujutacular (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A unique little trinket. ceranthor 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great restoration work. - Darwinek (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 21:37:47 (UTC)

Reason

I believe that this is a high quality, high EV, appropriately sized video game screenshot. It's one of the few freely licensed screenshots on the project, and I've placed it in the game's article, the type of game's article, and the publisher's article.

Articles in which this image appears

The Splatters (main use), Puzzle video game (supports a section), Microsoft Studios

FP category for this image

Entertainment

Creator

Created by SpikySnail Games. Released under a free license at the behest of Sven Manguard. OTRS ticket documents conversation leading to its release.

• Support as nominator --Sven Manguard Wha? 21:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: we really should be able to feature free screenshots, at the least to try and snare more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look through Commons:Category:Screenshots by video game for other free screenshots. I've uploaded some myself, but never submitted any for featured consideration. I'm too busy to maintain a Wikipedia presence right now, but indie developers are fairly approachable - it's worth your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahnchen (talk • contribs)
    • I'm actually stunned to see so many free screenshots, although, as far as I can tell, there still aren't very many from games with console releases or for current-gen consoles. I was never under the impression that getting this screenshot released under a free license was a unique achievement/breakthrough, but I still do believe that the quality of work that SpikySnail released is very much above average. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The screenshots are underused, there's no good mechanism for letting editors know what's available and what's new. I generally place free screenshots into the relevant English articles, but they're even more valuable on foreign language wikis with no fair use provision. Commons:Historical and commercial video games makes it easy to glance at a few games too. - hahnchen 02:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per criteria #1 and #7. The whole image appears blurry as though someone upscaled it. This is particularly noticeable on the top cord and the butterflies at the bottom right. The description is rather poor. I'm also not certain it meets criteria #3, particularly the second bullet but also the first. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point: The screenshot is larger than an HDTV screen, isn't it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could reach back out to the developer and ask, but my best guess having looked at the screenshots and watched the promotional videos, I'm pretty sure that the blurriness is intentional. If you look really close in some of the videos, as the game is played parts of the periphery drop in and out of focus. As for the description, I'd like for it to be better, but I've never actually played the game, so I don't know what to put in there. Ultimately, I want this to become a featured picture, but I know that this isn't an area I spend a lot of time in, and I don't know the standards. If you think that one of the other screenshots meets Criteria 3 better, by all means let me know and I'll be happy to swap them out. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The resolution is equal to that of a 16:9 fullHD screen and from my experience the max that games usually support. --Muhammad(talk) 07:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Clear EV, visually interesting. I wonder whether we need the cover image when we have a free screenshot? In the interests of minimising non-free content, I'd advise losing it; alternatively, perhaps ask if they're willing to release that too? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was concern over releasing the logo under a free license. I am one of those "get rid of fair use on Wikipeda" people, so I have no really strong objection to getting rid of the cover. I included it because there's a very strong precedent for doing so, and really only for that reason. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would object to it being on the front page out of WP:NOTPROMOTION concerns... no matter what licensing or issues may or may not be there. It's a commercial product. — raekyt 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Raeky: That is, of course, reasonable. Sven: I removed the cover of Dustbin Baby when I got a free image. I don't think you'd be losing much by removing the non-free picture. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Raeky: Perhaps, although we've had File:Canon_EOS_400D.jpg on the main page before, as well as Featured Articles on commercial entities (especially when it comes to sports). Ultimately I think that there's a huge difference between putting a screenshot on the main page and using Wikipedia for promotion. Additionally, it's likely that this won't hit the main page for what? months? years? (I honestly don't know how long the backlog is). That's long after the point in which the game is expected to make the bulk of its sales. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few weeks ago the image from Maid of the Mist was featured on the front page. One could argue that featuring the image promotes tourism and promotes the boat tour. I don't think the fact that featuring the image could be construed as promotion necessarily constitutes promotion. Re: removing the cover image, I would be against its removal. The same reasons to have the cover in the first place still stand. Otherwise we could just have a screenshot in the infobox serve both to illustrate the infobox and to show the gameplay/art style. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If it's featured, I see no problem with it being POTD, we have done it before and if it means getting people to license their images under a free license, then why not? --Muhammad(talk) 03:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Splatters 03.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 22:01:07 (UTC)

Reason

Reasonably high-res. Very well-composed, and very encyclopedic. I think this did reasonably well in the POTD competition for 2011; I'm surprised it wasn't nominated!

Articles in which this image appears

Galerie des Batailles

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

-donald- (Commons)

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a very good image, although maybe a touch washed-out looking, but it doesn't illustrate what the caption says it does: None of the art honouring French military history is in view here. I don't think this should be the lead image; an overview showing all the disparate elements would be better. However, it is a good image for the article, so Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between Ceranthor's edits to this page, and me doing a WP:SOFIXIT, most of the minor objections have been dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Blown highlights in the skylight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be hard to fix those, since the camera is pointed right at the light. I'm certainly not capable, in all honesty. ceranthor 02:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could, possibly, be addressed by retaking the image on a cloudy day or a time when the sun isn't directly overhead — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In those cases there would be less light in the surrounding vaults. I think if we accept the value of the straight-up view, we probably also have to accept the blown highlights in the glass. This image shows pretty well how bright the skylights tend to be compared to the surrounding ceiling detail. Chick Bowen 04:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do we have any pictures of the gallery on an overcast day? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see any at Commons. Here is a slightly less noisy edit: File:Schlachtengalerie Decke denoised.jpg. ceranthor 17:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The blown highlights cannot be easily avoided in this case and the oval structure of it is still clearly to be seen. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support arches are beautiful, but the skylight is still hopelessly blown — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I barely see the relevance of the blown highlights to the application of this photograph - it is not in this instance (I think) distracting, nor is useful information missing. Seems to be a good illustration of an important part of the subject (it is difficult to imagine a subject of which this quality of work would be considered an unimportant part!). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High illustrative value.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Limited EV in the context of the article, somewhat soft, a little unbalanced in terms of composition, and (while it may be hard to avoid) the ultrabright skylight makes the image painful to look at and washes out some of the surrounding detail. A reasonable picture for what it does, but not FP. --jjron (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose softer than I would like. --Pine^✉ 07:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Schlachtengalerie Decke.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 81% support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 00:43:32 (UTC)

Reason

The image is of an impressive high quality. A different version of the file was promoted to featured status sometime ago, but it was removed shortly after.

Articles in which this image appears

Las Meninas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

The Prado in Google Earth

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per previousprior discussion. The Google Art image was not substituted for the previous FP because it is too dark. The contents of the two paintings high on the back wall are supposed to be visible, and they are not in this reproduction. This is one of the most-discussed paintings in academic art history as well as outside of it. We should absolutely feature a first-rate reproduction of it. This isn't it, though. I also don't think an edit would help (I have fiddled with it myself); this was not properly lit when the photograph was taken. Chick Bowen 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the last discussion was this one, where a new nom was recommended :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Amended. Chick Bowen 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that when Google made a 2.1 gigapixel image of this painting at 394 dpi that they didn't take into CAREFUL consideration the coloring and lighting of the painting. It appears to be intentionally dark, photographs of it in the gallery File:Fale - Spain - Madrid - 75.jpg show it being dark, that picture is very overexposed and still it's very dark, and has a reflection across it from the angle. It's MORE Likely people have always brightened up the images of it artificially to make a better photograph canceling out the artists intent of the background being very dark. The darkness of the background is VERY likely to be intentionally because of the mirror in the background so it would clearly stand out by it's contrast in the dark space. Even the image used by say this video review of the painting shows it very dark. This article on the painting talks about the dark ceiling and darkened background being used to highlight the figures. So what sources are you using to say that this image is not an accurate representation of the actual painting? — raekyt 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Sigh>. I do rather feel we've been over this before. The human eye has a far greater dynamic range than a photograph. When you are in a gallery you can see the details of the painting even if it is not brightly lit. In order to be able to see the details in a reproduction (which you need to do, for example, if you're teaching the painting, as I have done many times), you need to brighten it. In this sense, there is no such thing as an accurate reproduction--any reproduction will require a choice between making it dark enough to look good or bright enough to see the details. Google has erred on the dark side because they think it's more aesthetically pleasing and because (I believe) it makes wear to the painting less obvious. I believe that is the wrong choice. Chick Bowen 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the points made by both of you. I am able to edit the picture, as I understand how photography works. Disclaimer: I have never worked with painting before, so please don't kill me if I make a mess :) As my internet connection is somewhat low, the edited version won't have 250MB of size, and it will be impossible for me to upload such a file. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then don't bother, to get my support on an edit you'd also have to upload the split version for full resolution AND include a loss-less version of your edit (PNG or TIFF) which would be A LOT larger than the JPEG. Plus lightening it in photoshop won't bring out anymore detail that Chick Bowen wants, it would need to be done at creation of the image or from the original RAW files if they exist. If it's just a matter of someone tweaking the brightness setting in an image editor anyone can do that on their end if they wanted it lighter for a presentation. — raekyt 02:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I'd better leave it as it is. Too much work I'm unable to do. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I agree with Raeky about this; it would require different lighting in the first place. Incidentally I regret the snide part of what I said above and have crossed it out. Chick Bowen 03:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 03:12:50 (UTC)

Reason

Very good EV. The image shows the clothes worn on a safari and the dusty atmosphere evidenced by the kerchief over the face. The man with the binoculars illustrates how a safari is different from a zoo. The rooftop opening of the car and the out of focus one in the background roughly show the type of vehicles used.

Articles in which this image appears

Safari

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 03:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment has not been in article for a week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a requirement and the image that I replaced was also mine. --Muhammad(talk) 03:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has, in many cases, been upheld. WP:FP? says "It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I think it depends on the article. An article where images are highly competitive needs that rule. We don't want to end up with a situation where images are thrown out of all the articles they were in, making them ineligible for FP even as the nomination runs. But an article like this, where, if anything, it's under-illustrated? Not so much of an issue. Especially as it's rarely edited anyway. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mean to belittle Muhammad's fantastic work, but it's better to be safe than sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't mind if it's suspended till we pass the 7 day period. --Muhammad(talk) 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fine, or we could start !voting now if there is consensus to do so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's start then and if anybody has an objection we can correct it on the way. Care to do the honors? --Muhammad(talk) 05:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support assuming everyone agrees we can waive the seven day thing. Sharp, good EV, good composition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very tight framing, doesn't show the surrounding terrain and animals (which is what safari about). Brandmeister^talk 10:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have an FP that shows the terrain and animals but misses out on detail on safari goers which only a close-up can show --Muhammad(talk) 14:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I'm going to have to Oppose on redundancy, I don't see this closeup adding anything new that the other picture can't provide better. A safari isn't about the person but the experience, and the wide shot captures that. — raekyt 23:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wide view does not show the clothing/equipment or the cars that well and it's not meant to do so. Saying the wide one is enough is like saying this image is good enough for wildbeests and impalas and we don't need any FPs of those. --Muhammad(talk) 13:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would only be convinced in the EV of that if the article actually discussed clothing.. as for vehicles you barely show the vehicles in this picture so it's not THAT high EV to illustrate the vehicles used in a safari, and the article doesn't talk about those as well. The comparison isn't valid since there is clear EV for wildebeests both closeup pictures and habitat images. — raekyt 17:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding the vehicles, the important part is the viewing method (rooftop opening). The nature of vehicle (again generic) is illustrated by the out of focus one in the background without distracting from the main subject. Regarding clothing, please see the article where it mentions khaki clothing, belted bush jackets and slouch hats among others all of which are present in this image, the most notable one being the slouch hat. --Muhammad(talk) 18:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I appear with raeky - this could be Longleat Safari Park for all we know... gazhiley 12:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point of this image IMO. Its usage in the safari article shows a generic, not specific safari. The image is not used to illustrate Ngorongoro --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept what you're saying there... But this picture still doesn't say Safari to me - it's just someone with their head out of the top of a jeep... Would need to see more around them to show that it's a safari... gazhiley 12:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have the right to an opinion but for me the bush jacket, slouch hat, binoculars, vehicles and environment all point to a typical safari. Where else would you ever see such a scene? --Muhammad(talk) 12:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clothing Catalogue, Movie/documentary scene, in the Australian Bush/Outback, deserts, etc etc...... Clothing and equipment do not guarentee anything. I just think showing a wider scene with animals would indicate it better... gazhiley 12:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no wow, really no different from a vacation shot you'd see on Instagram. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 03:21:28 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, light, EV and resolution (24mp+)

Articles in which this image appears

Taj Mahal

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 03:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Don't mind the people in front, gives a sense of scale. Good, sharp image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I find the Taj Mahal creeping from the background to be confusing. Nergaal (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Taj Mahal was behind me. The white bulbous domes are part of the mosque --Muhammad(talk) 08:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As further evidenced by the image this replaced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please clarify that in the caption. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Worst you could say about this is that it might be a tiny bit overexposed. Excellent image with high resolution. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent technical quality. The encyclopedic value cannot be doubted either. Based on a quick visual inspection I see little or no evidence of overexposure (but I have not checked it carefully). Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Beautiful view Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all. gazhiley 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Taj Mahal Mosque, Agra.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 14:31:38 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Leiocephalus personatus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Holleday

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Fauban 17:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Nice Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brandmeister^talk 17:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wouldn't have minded more DOF, and there's a weird reflection on his or her knee, but it's pretty good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leiocephalus-personatus-maskenleguan.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 15:55:30 (UTC)

Reason

Been eying this one for a while. I really love Massenet's operas, so this was irresistable, and it's a high-resolution scan of a rather gorgeous 1910 artwork.

Articles in which this image appears

Don Quichotte, Georges Rochegrosse, Jules Massenet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre

Creator

Georges Rochegrosse, with restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Fauban 17:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, good picture. Brandmeister^talk 09:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a high quality image with good educational value, both for the artist's style and the cultural depiction of its subject. Definitely an excellent addition to Don Quichotte. Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Voceditenore, - wonder if it would also serve articles about the history of posters, and the opera house, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Georges Rochegrosse's poster for Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 22:36:41 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting view of Chicago relationship with water on the largest fresh water system in the world

Articles in which this image appears

Beaches of Chicago Lake Michigan, also French, Polish and Occitan Pedias

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Flicker account

• Support as nominator --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid there's a slight crop needed: check the lower left-hand corner. There's a similar error in the upper right, but that one can be fixed with digital editing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love it. Beautiful panorama. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Firstly, there are a few technical glitches such as pointed out by Adam Cuerden above. The horizon is also not perfectly level (it is higher on the left than the right). The brightness of the image is not uniform; the middle portion of the sky is clearly brighter and the left 2/5 of the water is darker for no reason. Secondly, the extremely wide aspect ratio of the image does not lend itself well to effective placement in an article. Thirdly, the technical standard of the image is simply of middling quality by today's standards - the pixel resolution of the height is but 1000 px and viewing it at full resolution reveals that it is not terribly sharp at all. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with most of that, and also I note a stitching error on the horizon at the far left, right where the sailboat is, but the variance in water color could well be genuine, as the shallower bits tend to appear darker on a bright sunny day (I've spent a fair amount of time staring at this particular stretch of lake, including some from this very spot, so I'm pretty familiar with it). Chick Bowen 01:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. The water color does appear genuine. Different water color for different depths and currents by the breakwater, and the play of light. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, poor lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image indeed looks amazing, but the focus seems to be very oddly placed. It makes everything we'd usually look for in the picture to be fuzzy, reducing the possible EV that this image would hold for chicago or the beach: the focus makes the concrete wall the main element on the image, and the shot contradicts this approach. The effect is quite impressive, indeed, if we are trying to make an artistic image, but this artistic approach has an encyclopedic cost. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the water that matters: Nature and "Nature's Metropolis"[3]. It seems such an easily forgotten or overlooked perspective on urbanization and natural resource. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. In that case, it has an elevated EV, but I'd still complain a bit about the concrete wall at the left. I will download and crop it and see if that element is removed, the value improves. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to crop it and add what I did for evaluation. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think cropping off that much ruins a lot of the value unnecessarily (and still leaves the upper right black spot.) Isn't that a flood defense? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually ends right where the photographer was standing. It's a breakwater for the beach. The larger question here depends on what the picture is supposed to represent. These broad, stitched panoramas tend to make perspective confusing. This one makes the city look like an island. Chick Bowen 21:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you are both right about this breakwater being also a defense against flooding, which is the cause of beach erosion, which is why they built a curved breakwater. [4] It is also man-made intervention into the lake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose regarding the nominated image and strong oppose regarding the crop. The original composition is impressive as it invites the viewer to walk along the quay to the panorama of the city. However, there are far too many glitches in this picture. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both. I agree exactly with AFBorchert - I love the composition of the original, and feel that the crop is too heavy - surely by just trimming the left and bottom of the picture slightly would be enough to remove the problem - no reason to completely cut a huge chunk of the picture off... But the original just has too many errors... gazhiley 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 22:48:57 (UTC)

Reason

This image is a high quality image with high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Canon EF 40mm lens
Pancake lens
Canon EF lens mount

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The cat hairs/dust/fluff is too distracting. Could you clean the lens and try again? Sasata (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will have to wait until tomorrow. The lighting is not so good at night here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a studio shot this could be much improved. Firstly center the lens in the field of view, secondly use a smaller f number to get a deeper depth of view (use a tripod if needed). - Zephyris _Talk 00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you mean a higher f number (for deeper depth of view). Notice that I chose f/20, which is pretty high. I will push it up higher though. I think I can go up to 36. At f/20 the shutter was open for 8 seconds, which is pretty long and gives fairly deep depth. Tomorrow the lighting will be better. I shot this with a table top tripod and remote shutter control. I will go with my Manfrotto tomorrow. Keep in mind we could just crop it to center it so centering is not so important. I will get a clean and deep shot in the morning. Any other advice would be appreciated. Of course, I can keep retaking it with further advice later though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't use a smaller aperture than f/13 ( f/14 onward) as the image quality will deteriorate. Instead, try focus stacking --Muhammad(talk) 04:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Focus stacking is probably beyond the effort I am willing to give. I am willing to turn the Aperture priority dial from 20 to 36 and see where it takes us.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I could not wait until I had the aid of sunlight. Edit1 is with f/36. I think it is more well centered as well. I may redo with better light, but see what you think with f/36.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have saved over edit1. The day is very overcast. Maybe I can get even better light over the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead of stacking for edit2, I went to fully manaul with an exposure time about 2 or 2.5 times that which the aperture priority exposure was reading. The lens is much cleaner than the other versions. I was out of the house for most of the day, so I missed most of the good light. I can redo if there is need to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Edit 2" appears to be an entirely new photo, so the rule that it needs to have been in the article for at least a week comes into effect (I think). Moreover, it's not a great photo - there are still specks of dust on the barrel of the lens, it's not quite centred (I think) and seems to be at a slight angle. Tony, based on the above you seem to be trying to use the FP process as a means of getting tips on how to take FP-quality photos which, while an admirable ambition, isn't its intended purpose. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We finally had about 20 minutes of good light here in Chicago. I think this is close to what we are looking for. Still can't get that white white background. I hope that is not a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed a few flecks in the grooves. Sun no longer up. Will retry if sun comes up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Sorry but no chance of promotion. When you've got the perfect shot nominate it then --Muhammad(talk) 08:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See new nomination Jujutacular (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 05:39:41 (UTC)

Reason

I don't think I really need to defend a Mathew Brady photograph of a notable leader.

Articles in which this image appears

David Dixon Porter, United States Naval Academy, Music of Annapolis, Pennsylvania in the American Civil War, List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Delaware County.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Mathew Brady (note spelling), with restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Chick Bowen 16:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support awesome Alborzagros (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great, valuable photograph. - Darwinek (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:David Dixon Porter - Mathew Brady's National Photographic Art Gallery.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 17:12:12 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Kronoberg Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

LC-de

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not inspired by this and I don't find it as informative as something like http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/63062094.jpg which allows the viewer to see the overall shape of the castle. In the photo we have it looks like a wall with nothing behind. :( Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the composition and also the perspective that allows the surrounding water to be seen along with the bridge leading to the castle. As two of the towers are clearly visible at the corners, it should be obvious that this more than just a wall. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and AFBorchert... I was going to make it weak as the surrounding scenery and grass is very dark and blurred, but the focus of the nom ie the castle, is fine... gazhiley 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral the composition is interesting however the colours are over staturated (or very nikonish) especially the sky.--PierreSelim (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if the sky color weren't so uneven, the clouds are too much of a distraction from the castle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Gazhiley. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose not to bad, but I also find the sky distracting from the actual subject, in part because of the framing. --ELEKHH^T 00:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 17:16:20 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Vipera xanthina

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Benny Trapp

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quality is decent, DOF comes out a bit narrow despite a fairly large aperture being used, but focus is in the right spot, and we unfortunately can't see the tail. Probably taken in captivity which some regard as a negative (although this is not disclosed). Wish the species name could be sorted, this illustrates the Vipera xanthina article, but is titled Montivipera xanthina which is potentially confusing. --jjron (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems Montivipera xanthina and Vipera xanthina are synonyms. Not a fan of very shallow DOF; shorter focal length with a full frame makes the situation more worse. JKadavoor Jee 09:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they are, but unfortunately amongst the 8 synonyms already listed in the article Montivipera xanthina is NOT one of them! Apparently there's a taxonomic dispute about splitting the Vipera genus, with Montivipera one of the proposed new genera (or something like that). As I say potentially quite confusing when someone clicks through from that article to find a picture with a different species name, that is not even one of those given in the article as a synonym, and the article's species name is not given as a synonym on the image page. --jjron (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support though I agree more DOF would have improved the image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overall looks good. Brandmeister^talk 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The shallow depth of field isn't a huge deal, because that which is out of focus consists of more or less the same repeated pattern of scales etc as that which is in focus. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The lighting looks artificial, but considering it's a fucking viper, I guess we can make an exception :) Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Benny Trapp Montivipera xanthina.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 17:18:07 (UTC)

Reason

Notable painting of a notable biblical parable. Beautiful hi-res reproduction made available by Google Art Project.

Articles in which this image appears

The Return of the Prodigal Son (Rembrandt), Parable of the Prodigal Son, Rembrandt, Forgiveness, Henri Nouwen, Great Lent, Ukraine prison ministry

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Rembrandt

• Support as nominator --JFH (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only slight concern I have is that a small piece of the frame is visible in the top center of the image, I think it MAY be possible to clone it out but with such a large gigapixel image not sure if it's worth it... — raekyt 14:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise in this, so if this is to be done it will have to be someone other than myself. --JFH (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not worthy. It is definitely not worthy to do what has to be done to get rid of it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Of course. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is so large that it actually can't be viewed by the special zoom tool, at least on my computer. We should probably offer a scaled-down (but still very large) courtesy copy, to allow easier viewing, since we're getting to the size where actually seeing the original hits issues. We would, of course, promote this one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 19:02:12 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and EV. Image has been stable in the article for almost 2 years now

Articles in which this image appears

Adansonia, Wildlife of Tanzania

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough, also gives an idea what shadow can a baobab cast to rest there. Brandmeister^talk 14:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I think our Plant FPs could do with more full plants as against the preponderance of flowers and fruits, and this is quite well composed and detailed, with reasonable lighting (perhaps a slight crop at right?). My main reason for 'weak' is that I feel that this is one of those cases where, while well within criteria, it could do with a bit more size to allow more detail of the tree to be seen. --jjron (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I agree with Jjron. Still, that's what Delist and Replace is for. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Good Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Whole plants in the wild are naturally difficult photograph in a way which will pass FPC. This is because most plants don't appear in isolation from other species, and it is difficult to get photos which aren't a confusing mess. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The info box picture of Adansonia digitata has more EV in my opinion. JKadavoor Jee 09:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Baobab Adansonia digitata.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 06:24:51 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality image with high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Canon EF 50mm lens

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. note that I will only be able to retake this image for a few days, because one of these was just listed in a 3-day auction on eBay. I will be shipping it on Monday the 21st. Prompt advice on retaking this would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bad light, dust on the lens, too little distance between the two lenses and they seem to be tilting away from each other. --Muhammad(talk) 06:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will retake when I have sunlight. How much space would you like between them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you mean dust on the subject lens, not the one I am shooting with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes dust on the subject lens. I'd suggest you to take two different pictures then merge them in processing --Muhammad(talk) 09:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have saved over edit1. The day is very overcast. Maybe I can get even better light over the next few days. Dust may still be a problem. I will retry this evening.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reverted the original file. This morning's version is edit1 and this afternoon's is edit2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My cache is still showing edit1 for the original.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Sorry but no chance of promotion. When you've got the perfect shot nominate it then --Muhammad(talk) 08:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just another tip. Stand further away and zoom in more - being so close gives a 'distorted' look. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Jujutacular (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 06:32:51 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality image with high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Tiffen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks dirty, please clean the filters and re-shoot. --Muhammad(talk) 06:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention the background should be a bit better lit (to make it more pure white)... or that can be handled in post-processing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I will get a whiter background when I have sunlight. If not, I will need processing help, unless boosting the ISO would help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have saved over edit1 twice. The day is very overcast. Maybe I can get even better light over the next few days. I can also retry this evening. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have uploaded edit1 as a new file and reverted the original.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dust specks all over the lens cap, and what is the lens cap doing here anyway? It adds nothing but confusion to the composition. I also note that this image has only been in the article for a day. By the way Tony, can you please stop spamming FP nominations for photos you've taken of your camera equipment until at least one of them passes? They all have similar flaws. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least it's not spam of crap photos he's taken of Chicago again. Fuck me, that was beyond annoying. 129.234.235.156 (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • First note that these are with a DSLR instead of a point and shoot. Second, I did these three photo equipment ones together because I started with the 40mm. Then I realized that I had a four-day window to do a obverse/reverse image with the 50 mm. The filter goes with these two lenses so since I was shooting them, I did the filter too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I included the cap based on the talk page advice of Jujutacular. I can redo without the cap. P.S. I had no intention of nominating any other equipment. These three sort of go together. They are my two prime lenses that use the same filter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were to do just the filter, should I do it flat or on its side?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'd probably be better off asking editors who specialise in this kind of thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography given that you're talking about a completely different photo from that under consideration here. Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Sorry but no chance of promotion. When you've got the perfect shot nominate it then --Muhammad(talk) 08:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WIthdrawn. Jujutacular (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2013 at 15:10:36 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Point Vicente Light

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Mquach

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not quite there IMO - there appears to be a lot of noise (if my understanding of the term noise is correct) on the lighthouse and in the hazy background. Basically if you view at full size and then zoom in there's lots of very clear pixels rather than nice smooth shadows or lighting... gazhiley 12:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator of image for FPC at commons, and a member of the WLM USA 2012 jury who liked it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The article is specifically about the lighthouse (not exactly sure why it's just called light), and while this is an attractive picture with acceptable (not great) quality it doesn't show the lighthouse in its entirety. However it does put it in its context, so some points for that. --jjron (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Light" is apparently the official terminology, used by the maintaining agencies and enthusiasts alike. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much, but unfortunately it's not the terminology used in the article. Perhaps a modification to allow for a generalist audience on WP, but then why not make the same modification for the article name? --jjron (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'd have to take it up with the lighthouse project, or edit the article appropriately so it uses "light" consistently. In any event, this issue is beyond the scope of this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I put it as a parenthetical side-comment not relevant to my !vote. ;) --jjron (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support It's not the best image we've had of a place, but it's pretty good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2013 at 22:25:19 (UTC)

Reason

nice photo

Articles in which this image appears

Treskavica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Frfincon

• Support as nominator --H. W. Calhoun (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nice photo, yes. FP quality, no. Very noisy, especially around the water and foreground. The left hand side of the picture is extremely blurred, to the extent that you cannot see the (I assume) trees on the side of the mountain - it's just a green blur. And the lighting has made the snow have a purple halo around it... There is a technical name for the effect seen on the snow but I can't think of it at the moment... Nice try, but IMO not up to standard sorry... gazhiley 12:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have come to agree with Gazhiley. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 03:08:47 (UTC)

Reason

Impressive shot of Machu Picchu from the Wayna Picchu remnants. It depicts the full ruins of the abandoned Mayan city with a high quality. In my personal opinion, it holds a high encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Machu Picchu

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Martin St-Amant

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support H. W. Calhoun (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic quality, especially when using the large image viewer... Lovely... gazhiley 12:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a pretty big rainbow flare at the lower left. Should we use File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg where it has been removed? Chris857 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I am fine with any. That one could be used too. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer unedited when it's not too distracting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wow! Just wow! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 04:15:53 (UTC)

Reason

Good official portrait of a political figure.

Articles in which this image appears

Ed Miliband, Leader of the Labour Party (UK), Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010, England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012, European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom), London Assembly election, 2012, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom local elections, 2011, United Kingdom local elections, 2012, United Kingdom local elections, 2013, United Kingdom local elections, 2014

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Department of Energy

• Support as nominator --H. W. Calhoun (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the file is, at 797 × 1,200, considerably under the minimum size requirements for Featured Picture and does not fall within one of the accepted categories (as a photograph of a living person). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Grandiose Abudhar (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose standard staged portraits IMO have limited EV. --ELEKHH^T 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 07:13:22 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image with good background seperation.

Articles in which this image appears

Lesser Sand Plover

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice Abudhar (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice indeed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Mydreamsparrow (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I like this photo a lot, but why not do a D&R of the current FP File:Charadrius mongolus - Laem Phak Bia.jpg? --Pine^✉ 07:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind delisting the other if this passes. I didn't think I'd be returning to Thailand any time soon after nominating that one, and there is luck involved a lot of the time in getting a better shot. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Support this version. The current FP is good also but I think the new one is slightly sharper. --Pine^✉ 06:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Charadrius mongolus - Laem Pak Bia.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 07:15:44 (UTC)

Reason

A nice clear shot in a fairly dim setting.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey-headed Canary-flycatcher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The 1600 ISO I assume was due to the dim setting? Abudhar (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, very much so. Have a look at the shutter speed in the exit data.27.55.8.117 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Noisy and blurry at full size, but that's probably fixable. Nice species and good composition. Brandmeister^talk 10:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 07:29:40 (UTC)

Reason

There is argument about whether this bird should be a subspecies or a separate species from the Kentish Plover. We already have a separate Wikipedia article, and I think that a split is likely in the future. I went on a boat trip with a local guide specializing in taking people to this bird to get the photo. He helped me ensure correct identification (and saved a very long walk along a beach in 35 degrees and 100% humidity!). This photo is a very clear illustration. Hopefully I will nominate a Kentish Plover image eventually too. I don't think we have any other images on commons (save one incorrectly id'd one)

Articles in which this image appears

White-faced Plover

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well done, JJ. Tomer T (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hate to bring this up, as much as I like this picture, the size falls short of the minimum requirement on one-axis. How is this dealt with here? Abudhar (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probable one of the exceptions we allowed for when we increased it. Photographing some birds like this are nearly impossible to do close-up so you have to use large zoom lenses and crop. JJ made this very appeal when we was increasing the size requirement for an exception in cases where some birds must be photographed/cropped because of that. If you note a 1000mm lens was used in this photograph's metadata. — raekyt 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly I didn't check the size before I nominated, but yes, I'd like to make those arguments. This type of bird is very small, and there is no natural cover on a beach. I essentially waited prone near the end of a Sandspit patiently for an hour or two, and this is as close as it came. Attempting to approach the bird would result in it flying away. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raekyt 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Epic. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice, and plenty enough size given the subject matter. --jjron (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality and strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Charadrius alexandrinus - Laem Pak Bia.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 07:49:55 (UTC)

Reason

Very good portrait of a Jek people.

Articles in which this image appears

Jek people, Shahdagh people, Quba Rayon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People

Creator

Cekli829

• Support as nominator --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First off it's used in galleries on all three pages, which is against criteria for a FPC. It appears to be very snapshotty, used in stub articles that are over-illustrated, used in two articles for two different people? EV is questionable. — raekyt 17:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but I have to agree with Raeky. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per raeky gazhiley 12:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --- Cano58 (message) 12:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 18:17:05 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, Piran is a very nice little town which deserve to be more famous.

Articles in which this image appears

Piran

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Federico Orsini

• Support as nominator --RimOrso (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It is a wonderful picture, but the darkness in the foreground makes me a bit hesitant. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wonderful place, but this image has two main flaws: The detail at full resolution is very dizzy and the lightning is working against the shot. It needs to be taken at a much earlier time so that the sun is above the city and not from a side. Also, we don't have a defined horizon here, which is needed to have a clearer prespective: I feel like seeing a city in the skies a la Bioshock Infinite. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like make some clarifications concerning the lightning. First of all note that I took the picture at 2pm in mid-November, so, even a couple of hours before, the sun would not have been much higher. Moreover I find interesting the contrast between the illuminated and shaded sides of the buildings. Then I think that the non-defined horizon gives the sensation of high air humidity (it was indeed a quite humid day). - Federico Orsini 12:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noise, Noise, everywhere Noise... Plus really dark, and as mentioned above the sun is an issue. Not up to standard sorry... gazhiley 12:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with the above, looks like a beautiful area but very dark in the foreground. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 02:36:34 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of an important building detailing the architecture.

Articles in which this image appears

Louisiana State Capitol, List of National Historic Landmarks in Louisiana, List of state capitols in the United States

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

chrismiceli

• Support as nominator --Chrismiceli (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The building is too dark for my taste. The lightning could be improved here. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the thumbnail is being generated darker than the actual image. I've uploaded a new version also to attempt to address the issue. Can you please inspect the full resolution and let me know if an issue still persists? --Chrismiceli (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will take a look now. I am downloading the full image. I will give you a full comment in some hours. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update Okay. I have looked at the bigger one and the building has a good lightning. I have an additional concern. Although there indeed is noise everywhere in the sky, it goes unnoticeable at resolutions under 75% of the original size, and at full size it can be noticed iff you take a closer look, but that's not my concern. The issue is that, as Gaz said, the top is out of focus and the flags can't be detailed as one would like to. I find this to be not very important but it jams the picture. A nitpicky comment is that I lose the orientation when looking at the building's tower: it looks like a two-dimensional building and it betrays my perspective, but maybe it's just me. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a stitched image so the perspective may need improvement, but this really isn't my area of expertise. Someone with experience in stitching buildings together should probably recommend what type of projection is best and what kind of perspective should be desired. --2001:4898:2:2:B539:C302:6A74:9254 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by chrismiceli (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Support : Its looking very nice. Mydreamsparrow (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lots of noise, especially in the sky around the building, and the top part of the building is out of focus. gazhiley 12:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose way too much noise to get over. Even taking into account the fact that we should have a bit higher tolerance for such large images, that's a lot of noise. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 03:02:14 (UTC)

Reason

A quality shot of the Seattle skyline, with the famous Space Needle somewhat in the foreground.

Articles in which this image appears

Seattle, List of metropolitan areas in the Americas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Rattlhed

• Support as nominator --AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although the image size is low, I enjoy looking at it. It has a well-balanced composition (the trees may look burned, but they aren't by a bit), the skyline is positioned in one of the thirds of the shot, which increases its visual appeal. The degrading colour of the sky is shocking. The only fault I could find is the fact that the buildings behind the skyline are a bit shaded in grey; I would have preffered to see them with pure colours, but I guess this was not intentional. Another minor detail is the trees placed at each one of the low corners of the image. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice photo, but well below current size size requirements, especially given its scenic scope. If you can replace it with a bigger version I'll reconsider. --jjron (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too small for my liking - it may be within criteria but I would want to be able to zoom in further for a shot of this style. But my main objection is the lighting. I don't know if any special effects have been used, but the needle looks fake and superimposed onto the picture. Just to clarify I know it isn't! Just saying it looks it from the weird looking lighting. gazhiley 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You beat me to this jjron! If it is below size requirements then that validates my first concern. gazhiley 11:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WAY to small. — raekyt 02:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fails size requirements. Dusty777 03:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 01:32:33 (UTC)

Reason

Clear picture, big enough, and a good image of a baseball umpire, standing stoically on the field.

Articles in which this image appears

Bob Davidson (umpire)

FP category for this image

Sport

Creator

UNCCTF

• Support as nominator --AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Back is to camera, can't see face. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I have been going through a lot of the umpire pictures while tagging them. I have some much better options, can I just withdraw this one? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - Withdrawn. --jjron (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 05:56:29 (UTC)

Reason

This image finished 10th out of hundreds of thousands of candidates during WP:WLM. This nighttime image complements the daytime FP that we already have (File:Chicago Theatre blend.jpg).

Articles in which this image appears

Theatre in Chicago
Chicago Theatre

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Raymonst (Raymonst at commons)

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Blurred, looks like a slight motion blur; while the main writing is quite clear all the finer details are blurry. Also composition not quite there - more careful framing would have included the top of the arch at the expense of some of the roadway. I will say though that this place probably looks better at night and mix of the current featured version and a good night shot might do well. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 07:00:27 (UTC)

Reason

This picture is very sharp with drops of sweat and strands of mustache hair and eyebrows in sharp focus

Articles in which this image appears

Jahlil Okafor

FP category for this image

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

Creator

TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a good portrait and great plus for Wikipedia--it's rare for us to get a free image of a top high school athlete. It's too bad the depth of field is so shallow--his ears are actually pretty far out of focus. Next time bring at least a monopod to the game and you can probably get away with 1/30 shutter speed instead of 1/60 (or, since from his face he looks like a nice guy, ask him to stand in a more brightly lit spot). Were you standing on something to get level with him, or are you actually that tall? By the way, I love this picture, which has great journalistic value. Chick Bowen 02:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I standing was two or three rows deep on the bleachers. He was shaking hands with all the coaches and assistant coaches after practice (no photos of the practice were allowed). Instead of shaking when he got to me, I got him to take a picture. As for Izzo and Calipari, they were on the side of the bleachers. If I had been thinking, I would have gone over and got a shot so that the bleachers weren't blocking their lower legs. I am still trying to get permission to bring my camera gear for the Jan 26th contest when he plays Jabari Parker. No word yet. IIRC, I think I took this photo on fully auto. How important are the ears to this photo?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good portrait but the light seems harsh and the shutter speed too low I think which has made his resulted in his eyes being motion blurred --Muhammad(talk) 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's not a bad attempt, and spontaneous portraits are not easy to take, but I just don't think this one is good enough. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not bad at all, but like those above say: lighting is a bit harsh, slow shutter speed, and depth of field is a bit shallow. It looks like it may have been too dark in this room to get an ideal shot. Jujutacular (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 16:05:24 (UTC)

Reason

Its good one

Articles in which this image appears

Cubbon Park, K. Seshadri Iyer, Architecture of Karnataka, Seshadripuram

FP category for this image

Creator

Mydreamsparrow

• Support as nominator --Mydreamsparrow (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kind of an odd composition (for Wikipedia use, anyway - this'd be great if you wanted to put text left of the statue) that cuts off the right edge of the plinth. I suspect cutting off the plinth is going to be the major issue here; FPC is really picky about things like that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the file description should probably include {{FoP-India}}
• Oppose Very odd framing throws off the entire image. I might support a cropped version but I fear that to center the statue it would have to be too tight of a crop. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 18:35:32 (UTC)

Reason

A strong one from Commons. The article's a stub, but that's not the end of the world. Also, a Japanese species, which we don't have much of.

Articles in which this image appears

Rhinogobius flumineus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Seotaro

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A little noisy in the blacks, but it doesn't seem to be affecting the subject itself. Most likely taken in captivity, which should really be mentioned on the image page, and can be seen as a negative at times. Article definitely needs work. --jjron (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Also, to Jjron: I think we can forgive captive fish photos; it's not like land animals where one can get good-quality photos with the same equipment. The increase in difficulty between on-the-spot underwater photography and aquarium photography (for little additional benefit for shots like this) is far, far more than the increase in difficulty between a zoo and wild shot on land. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so (and unlike some I'm not especially anti captivity photos, as long as they 'look' natural, although I will give more leeway to shots taken in the wild), however my point is more there's no real reason not to mention it on the image page, which is what Criteria 7 really recommends as well. Yes, this gives the location (Hamamatsu), but is it in an aquarium, in the bay, in a river ...? It's not irrelevant information. --jjron (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others. JKadavoor Jee 05:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rhinogobius flumineus(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 13:14:15 (UTC)

Reason

A nice satellite image of an entire country, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Nauru, Geography of Nauru, Geology of Nauru, Outline of Nauru, Environmental disaster

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back

Creator

Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)

• Support as nominator --H. W. Calhoun (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nice image, but unfortunately, this image does meet the minimum size of 1500px in each dimension (featured picture criteria). Especially considering we have obtained many satellite images of very high resolution, I don't think we can make an exception here. Thank you for submitting :) Jujutacular (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's slightly below the recommended size of 1500×1500, this image is unique to most satellite images. You can see the national airport and roads, which you can't in any current featured satellite images. Nauru, being a small country in the middle of nowhere, also has barely any satellite images taken of it. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's pretty clear in Google Maps... Can zoom in much closer, and see more detail... gazhiley 14:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Jujutacular. gazhiley 14:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose definitely not up to snuff with modern publicly available satellite images. Plus the source say's it's aerial and not satellite, so it's even worse. — raekyt 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to withdraw this nomination. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 01:31:26 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful art, under-represented topic.

Articles in which this image appears

Woman Suffrage Parade of 1913, Women's suffrage in the United States, Women's suffrage

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Dale, for the National American Woman Suffrage Association

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the black border doesn't belong to the image, it should be definitely cropped. All in all good poster, reminding Joan of Arc. Brandmeister^talk 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a cropped variant, but the sides aren't all that straight, so I had to do some extra tweaking to make it work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support(see below) Fascinating iconography and therefore strong EV (certainly the to first two articles). Border issues can be overlooked, although, Adam, I think you would be forgiven in distorting the image very slightly to make it rectangular. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded the version finally. Sorry, I've been feeling a bit unmotivated this week. How unmotivated? I just had to upload it to put it up here. The work was already done. It's just been a very difficult week. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support both, prefer alt Out of interest, Adam, why provide use with both PNG and JPG versions? I'd be happy enough supporting either. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PNGs are lossless, and therefore can be reedited and used for printing at better quality. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a bug that the coders have decided not to fixed: Sharpening is applied to JPEGs when thumbnailed, but not PNGs. It makes for a very noticeable loss in quality for PNG thumbnails. I tried arguing with the coders, but they seem to think this situation is fine, and consider having their horrible, horrible lack of basic competence when it comes to image files (this is not the only bug unfixed for half a decade; they do not prioritise images at all), I don't think we can expect a fix any time soon. The only reason we have even the minimal TIFF support we have is because German Wikipedia paid someone else to do it, and, to my knowledge, that is the only image-related fix or improvement we have had since. Mind, they've managed to break a few things: Large TIFFs used to degrade gracefully when over the max size. Now they just don't show at all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt Brandmeister^talk 16:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt --Muhammad(talk) 11:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Per all of the above. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Official program - Woman suffrage procession March 3, 1913 - crop.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 17:46:48 (UTC)

Reason

Considered useful for the article, high value

Articles in which this image appears

Indian Peafowl

FP category for this image

Commons:Category:Featured pictures of birds

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Wilfredor (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good picture. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This has only just been added to the article. Especially in an article like this, I'd really like to see it stable for a while. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Rather busy background. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but I'm not liking the crop at all. I think that a full body picture will have more encyclopedic value. Also, the busy shiny background is quite distracting. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Strongly disagree, blurred background is especially to reinforce or highlight the main subject in this case, the Indian Peafowl. I recommend reviewing Bokeh, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I understand (as a photographer) the principles of Bokeh. Works taken using this technique (technique means the intentional application of the bokeh effect) are quite stunning and impressive, but the point is that they look extremely artistic, and that doesn't always mean encyclopedic. Encyclopedic works have to present the visual content with a clear, basic technique, under no special manipulations of the framing, lightning and/or compositional elements that may make the picture look unrealistic. Although, that's just a side issue not strong enough by itself to make me oppose this candidate; I would gladly support mainy pictures using this effect. My main reason to oppose here is the cropping done. I believe that a full body shot has way more encyclopedic value by showing the entire anatomy of the Indian Peafowl (letting the viewers the ability to compare it with other types of Peawolfs or pavos). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - Withdrawn. Now I remember why I had not nominated before, I never understand that it is a photo that is too artistic and a photo with little encyclopedic value. Thanks for your feedback --Wilfredor (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 04:18:17 (UTC)

Reason

Yes, this image is incredibly small by FPC standards, BUT it is extremely hard to picture liquid fluorine, since it reacts with glass. The only reason this picture could be taken is because it was kept at very low temperatures, where it reacts only slowly. Very few people have the equipment (and courage) to prepare a sample like this, which makes any picture of this element in its pure form incredibly rare.

Articles in which this image appears

Fluorine

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

TCO

• Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unless there's been some sort of error here, dimensions are only about 1/5th of the current minimum. And FWIW the image is by Prof B. G. Mueller, not TCO. Suggest Speedy close. --jjron (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Difficult to work with, yes.. but there are quite a few chemists that do Florine chemistry so it's not unreasonable to imagine we could get higher quality images at some point. — raekyt 10:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most chemists who do Fluorine chemistry are using to avoid using elemental Fluorine. Those that do aren't going to using it in ways that can be photographed. If they were I'd expect to be a bunch of photos from the US department of energy.©Geni 17:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes a rare image, of exceptional value because of its rarity, still does not meet the featured picture criteria because of quality issues. That circumstances make them understandable can help account for such issues but cannot completely overwhelm them. This appears to be such a case. It's possible that no better picture will be forthcoming, but that fact doesn't in itself compel us to feature this one. Chick Bowen 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a situation like File:Pale Blue Dot.png where TRULY we won't get another image. Like I said above, there are plenty of chemists working with elemental Fluorine, it's rare, it's dangerous, but it's IMPORTANT chemistry, so plenty do it at large universities. Like the The Periodic Table of Videos video on Fluorine [5], Brady has released images before for Wikipedia, and if asked nicely may release something from that video. Likewise it's not impossible to contact the chemists working with elemental Fluorine and just ask them if they could produce a good image of liquid Fluorine for Wikipedia, and you may get a response. With a bit of work you could get something better, it's not impossible. — raekyt 15:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the article can certainly use this but it's not an FP ... too low-res, for one thing. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 17:39:03 (UTC)

Reason

It's been a long time since a macro was nominated. Good quality, lighting and colors.

Articles in which this image appears

Phalanta phalantha, Phalanta

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good choice. Brandmeister^talk 17:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. DOF is a tad shallow, and sadly with the EXIF stripped I can't tell what aperture was chosen to see how avoidable this was, but given the photographer knows what he's doing I'll give the benefit of the doubt that he's made the best choice. I'd also tend to say I'd rather this be rotated 180° for aesthetic reasons so that the beasty points 'up', but the plants in the background indicate it may have been taken close to vertically in which case it probably should remain as is. --jjron (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Beautiful Mydreamsparrow (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not much wing details. I know it is difficult in this angle of view; but prefer either a dorsal or ventral view for better EV. JKadavoor Jee 09:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I agree with Jjron that the DOF is too shallow and I think stripping the EXIF should be counted as a major minus against any nomination but the image itself does a good job of showing the subject and is of overall high enough quality. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the EXIF and it was shot at f/10, which for semi macro as this is very good. I can replace the EXIF if it's a big deal --Muhammad(talk) 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a big deal but it's nice to know when it's available. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I've seen better insect photographs, but I reviewed the other images in the article, and it does appear this one is particularly hard to get a good shot of at all. As such, I'm happy enough to add my vote to Cat-five's. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Common Leopard Phalanta phalantha.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 17:49:07 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, light, composition

Articles in which this image appears

Spialia mafa, Spread-winged skipper, Spialia

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Wing texture is a bit soft, not a fan of the framing, and the stick (or whatever it is) on the left is distracting. Sasata (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JKadavoor Jee 09:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Decent amount of detail, and as a very small butterfly (less than an inch wide) this is fairly macro. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - The composition is a bit odd, and it's small. Fairly encyclopedic. ceranthor 17:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could put up a different crop if that would help with the composition. The resolution though can't be increased as it's difficult with macros where a lot of cropping out is involved. --Muhammad(talk) 19:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IS the crop better? --Muhammad(talk) 01:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the crop it's too small of a resolution to meet the FP criteria! I understand that the resolution can't be increased, but I will support the original to break the tie, since I lack strong objections. ceranthor 19:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Both are nice but I like the first one more Mydreamsparrow (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer I have asked Ceranthor for feedback on the edit --Muhammad(talk) 15:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mafa Sandman Spialia mafa.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 00:19:35 (UTC)

Reason

An incredible high-quality shot of the Mount Roraima, taken by Wikipedian Paolo Costa Baldi. Already featured on the Spanish Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Roraima

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Paolo Costa Baldi

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An EV. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : A nice work Mydreamsparrow (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Have been holding off on this one cos I've been wanting to convince myself to support, but the mountain itself is just too hazy, so much so that it and the clouds above it almost look artifacted, and meaning we get see very little detail of the actual mountain. It's a little concerning the description says "Clear morning at Mount Roraima..."; is this as good as it gets? A number of images on Commons suggest it's not, but that there's so many on Commons also suggests this is not as rare a shot as I might have expected and which could have allowed for some exceptions to be made on quality. --jjron (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, due to the highness and position of the mount, getting a clear shot without the haze is very hard from a long distance. I have checked the category and most pictures there are taken from closer distances, losing the perspective of how the mount looks from its surroundings and the contrast of it and the Gran Sabana. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Most of it looks to be in shadow. Haloing from tonemapping of some form is too noticeable for me. I think maybe the photo should be taken in the afternoon. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In the afternoon is worse. I have been close to that place (Puerto Ordáz) and those clouds are there all the time. As I explained above, the only clear shot would be from a more close position, but it will lose the contrast that this picture holds between the Tepuy and the Gran Sabana. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There is sometimes at FP a tendency towards untypical views - If mists or clouds are there 99.9% of the time; you should take it on the day, once in a decade, that they lift, and so on. We can use different pictures to show different aspects of a subject, this is very good for this aspect. And do remember that the cliffs, while an important part of the mountain, wouldn't generally be considered the whole mountain - the elevation below them that a closer view would leave out is also part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The shot itself is fine. I don't think clouds detract significantly from the EV of a picture that already shows scale. ceranthor 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think the cloud is the problem. As a picture of the mountain, it fails to do what it most important and show the mountain due to the haze. --Muhammad(talk) 10:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 62.5% support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 00:28:11 (UTC)

Reason

The best free image available of the Utricularia quelchii, taken at the summit of Mount Roraima by Paolo Costa Baldi. It is of a great quality and holds a good encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Utricularia quelchii

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Paolo Costa Baldi

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose looks good in the thumbnail but there's a bit of motion blur on the flower and noise. As a side-note, I'd prefer a picture taken upwards towards the flower --Muhammad(talk) 06:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The very distracting background entirely ruins it IMO. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 08:08:59 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality image with good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Software engineering, Software, Software engineer, and many articles through Template:Software development process including articles such as Computer programming, Agile software development, and User experience design

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Matthew Roth, Matthew (WMF)

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 08:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would love it if we had more occupational portraits, but I do think they should show the worker's face; this one is a portrait of a computer screen, which actually doesn't illustrate software engineering very well, since that is something done by people. File:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg and File:Arborists-3,-Kallista,-VIC,-09.07.2008.jpg are both good models for this kind of picture, particularly the arborist one, which is a favorite of mine. Chick Bowen 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• strong oppose First the framing is too tight for me. I'm rather concerned to see this picture as infobox image of articles such as Scrum (development) because it doesn't not illustrate this agile method (nor it illustrates Agile software development). It shows an OOF developper with it's two screens, a wiki (what he is working on) and a JS editor. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The worker's face is totally unimportant. It is what he does which matters. Software engineers mostly sit in front of a computer and work on the source of computer programs. So that sense this photo is quite representative in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is an unremarkable photo without any inherent message. The cropping is too tight and the back of the individual occupies too much space. I would agree with JJ Harrison if the shot was back perhaps 10 feet. While the image may very well depict software engineering, it does add to the knowledge of the viewer. User:Ludwig Wise 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LudwigHW (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Oppose per above. Framing is too tight. Jujutacular (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ludwig. I really wonder what about this image led someone to nominate here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 18:12:36 (UTC)

Reason

This follows the original nomination, which was speedily closed with the instruction to renominate when I thought I had the perfect shot. This production was quite a learning experience for me as a photographer. Like before, I shot this with a Canon EOS Rebel T4i. Rather than use a the Kit 18-55mm lens on a tabletop tripod (like the original image and final version), I went with the Canon EF 70-300mm lens on a full tripod. Thus, I was able to dial the f all the way to 45. I had to turn off the image stabilization because of the shake it creates on a tripod. Also, manual focus seemed to be sharper than autofocus. I was unable to get close to the dark black that I had achieved with my final version of the prior nomination until I adjusted the contrast and sharpness. After doing so, I noticed that the lighting seemed quite blue so I had to use custom white balance. Adjusting contrast and white balance are both techniques I learned yesterday at my local Calumet Photographic. My apartment is quite dusty so it took me several dozen takes to get the image this clean. I think this compares favorably with the only lens at FP (File:Lens aperture side.jpg).

Articles in which this image appears

Canon EF 40mm lens
Pancake lens
Canon EF lens mount

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

TonyTheTiger

• Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose -- The color balance, contrast, and/or lighting looks much better on this shot. The crop is still a bit off -- for a shot like this it would make the most sense to me to center the lens in the frame. Per Muhammad's comment on the original nomination, the image quality is degraded a bit when you use an aperture smaller than f/13 or so. It makes much more sense to take a series of medium-to-large aperture shots and use software to focus-stack them. The resulting image would be much sharper and have better image quality overall. Jujutacular (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is uncropped. Cropping for centering is trivial compared to other issues so I will respond to those. I tried much more modest fs to see the image. It is difficult to get both the 40mm in focus and 52 mm in focus at lower fs in the setting I was working in. It might be possible under other settings, but stacking f/13s would have been stacks of images where the 52mm was out of focus in all originals. If you want both the front and back in focus this is the best I can do at this magnification. Admittedly, I was working at near the shortest focal distance possible at 300 mm. I did not try backing up and cropping out a portion of a smaller image. Likely from a greater distance the difference in focus quality of the 40mm and 52mm might not be that much. Any thoughts? Would we really be better stacking a few megapixels out of an 18 megapixel image from lower fs than this full image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, on the original nomination I started with f/20 and was told to shrink the aperture and went to f32-36. Now I am starting with f/45 and you are telling me to work at least f/13 wide. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm saying you should focus stack multiple images in order to get the whole lens in focus, instead of using a very small aperture with lower image quality. This reflects what Muhammad said in the original nomination. Jujutacular (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What kind of software would I need to focus stack?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Free: CombineZ (you can get good results with this, for example). Not free: Zerene Stacker. Jujutacular (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am definitely not going to pay for software to do this. I would prefer to get this image with better light if possible. I live in Chicago with north facing windows. I believe this means that I only get direct sunlight a few months a year. I will have a lot of blue in my light from light bouncing off the blue sky most of the rest of the year. Is it possible that in direct sunlight months or in a better lighting situation, I can get better depth of focus without stacking?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Like I said, you can get good results with CombineZ. As for lighting you may try a DIY light tent. Maybe ask one of our more experienced photographers, I've never really done any studio photography. Jujutacular (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I made a light tent from a cardboard box using tracing paper and some sticky tape. Little to no expense required. The advice to increase the depth of field was sound, but increasing aperture so far is not the best way to do it. Your sensor will be sharpest at around f7.1-8. I'd probably stack at f9 or so. Oh, and 300mm is overkill. 80-150mm is just fine - whatever is convenient and not too short. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Regarding, suggestion to shrink from 300mm down to 80-150, it is necessary given my lenses and the subject size. I have a wide angle, 40mm, 50mm, 18-55mm and 70-300. The 70-300 has a minimum focal distance that makes a 100mm shot of this subject 1046x1425 pixels making it less than 1.5 megapixels at 100mm. I can barely get three different focal distances of a subject that small.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I backed up to about 11 ft. At that distance the image is about 1/4 the width of the screen. Thus, we would be talking about a final image that is 1/16th of 18megapixels. We would be pushing the image to the lower bounds of acceptable file size. At that distance, f13 does not produce sharp text in the rear of the subject (the 52mm). Thus, if you want the text reading 40mm in the front and the text reading 52mm in the back to be sharp, you have to deal with the high f-stops. What part of the image quality do you find degraded in this submission?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. I have the raw file for this image in case the image quality issue is something that might be processed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the crop, I have cropped the file to 40 pixels border on all sides and saved it over the uncropped original.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is much closer than the others, and a big improvement. However, the crop is too tight. I think at least a few hundred pixels on each side would be better. It's a bit visually jarring in the article thumbnails as is. Secondly, don't use such a narrow aperture; for physics reasons the resultant photo will be very soft. Learn how to focus stack and then do that. CombineZP is free computer software. It is a good skill to have anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will go with 250 pixels on all sides except the top. I guess I will try to learn how to focus stack. What angle should I be shooting this at? I'll upload that over the current crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Should I show stack results here or should that be a separate nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination superseded by Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canon EF 40mm STM lens (focus stacked version). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 15:39:34 (UTC)

Reason

This is a photograph of a pod of sperm whales. The original photo (available here:http://www.flickr.com/photos/barathieu/7991520863/) was cropped and filtered to bring out the whale's natural grey color

Articles in which this image appears

sperm whale

FP category for this image

Physeter macrocephalus

Creator

Gabriel Barathieu

• Support as nominator --Kurzon (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Excellent EV, though it's quite grainy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I was ready to say EV trumps quality on this but wow that's grainy and near the top where the turbulence is looks like it's been run through a soft brush filter in Photoshop. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The value of this photo much outweighs the drawbacks in my opinion. The grain is not all that bad. Great find! Jujutacular (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Amadscientist (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Jujutacular - there are severe extenuating circumstances for the quality defects. --99of9 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sadly, as would be a very good image, and still is at thumb, but have to agree with Cat-five that there's something seriously strange going on. Not just a noise issue, this looks like it's been through some sort of filter, may have even been a low intensity film-grain filter. Whatever it is, it doesn't look right. --jjron (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 02:22:23 (UTC)

Reason

Good photo of person of historical significance. Captures Ibsen's earnestness.

Articles in which this image appears

Henrik_Ibsen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Gustav Borgen

• Support as nominator --Iselilja (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn, as per valid opposition. Iselilja (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't suppose we can find out the source? It's a pretty good picture, but it has a few minor issues I would like to check against the original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is posted at Norwegian Digitalt Museum, and I would assume they have posted the original. It says the photo is owned by Norsk folkemuseum. We have wikipedians affiliated with that museum if you have any particular requests. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the version we have is very, very similar to the version there, so the slight streakiness at full-res is almost certainly original. As such, Support - a very good photo of a notable playwright, with its issues primarily caused by its age. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support H. W. Calhoun (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose per Adam - I can see little lines at full res, but I think they're insignificant detractions. Obvious EV. ceranthor 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose per Adam Certainly. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose Per Adam's findings. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good picture of notable figure. Decent quality, especially considering the age. --jjron (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—the image certainly seems to fill the criteria for an FP, but shouldn't it be retouched first? There are many small marks and blemishes. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a restored version. Oppose both.

Yes, really: When doing the restoration, I discovered some things that, while I did try to reduce some of them in the restoration, make this unsuitable for FP:

1. The image appears to be made up, not of filmgrain, but of JPEG artefacts.
2. The image had lots and lots of blurry bits in the "background". I added some texture to these, but that's not at all normal. It may, however, be a consequence of point 1. Or it might be a badly failed restoration attempt by the museum or original uploader. It's hard to tell sometimes.
3. A long, black streak over the image. See image notes at commons:File:Henrik_Ibsen_by_Gustav_Borgen_NFB-19778.jpg. Though, to be fair, this was pretty fixable when I sat down and forced myself to do the best, ignoring the other problems.
4. Sleeve blends into background. That's a mushiness of colour I've never seen in a well-scanned photo of this period, and doesn't seem to be an issue with any of the creator's other images.

I think the first two are the most problematic. Since we do have Wikipedians at the museum, I think it's worth contacting them, and seeing what can be done. I'll gladly restore whatever high-quality scan they can offer - They may consult my recent David Dixon Porter featured picture as an example of my work. - and we could (indeed, should) improve the file information page so that they get the appropriate, clear credit for their release. But I don't think settling, when we have people in the museum, is really an appropriate option. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your serious evaluation work, Adam. I fully trust your findings and reasoning. Please consider the nomination as withdrawn. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 15:19:40 (UTC)

Reason

Remarkable photo of the Sea Side salt-water pools with the first one being built in 1929 by Edward H. Griffith on the left, and a new pool being built currently on the rocks in Three Arch Bay, South Laguna Beach CA.

Articles in which this image appears

Laguna Beach, California

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 15:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Over exposed, especially around sand and rocks, and too blurry sorry. gazhiley 13:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting framing, but overexposed and slightly blurry. --ELEKHH^T 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per the above, very overexposed and the blur. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. The image is quite impressive, but looking at it, it has the elemet focus in every place, nothing is centered or highlighted. Also, it is a bit overexposed and blurred. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 02:58:01 (UTC)

Reason

Good photo of a handball player during a game of handball at the 2012 Olympics

Articles in which this image appears

Katarina Bulatović

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Flickr user sostomymother

• Support as nominator --Calhoun ^talk 02:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The image is quite grainy, and the horizontal dimension is below the 1500 pixel standard. Chris857 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 3,456 × 5,184 version uploaded. Calhoun ^talk 03:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very grainy (3200 ISO image), poor focus, and awkward with the position of the ball. Not a good portrait nor a good action shot. — raekyt 13:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Now I look back at this, I don't know why I nominated this. Consider this a withdrawal. Calhoun ^talk 14:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 20:07:24 (UTC)

Reason

An incredible high quality picture of the Space Shuttle Enterprise while it approaches to a Landing Test.

Articles in which this image appears

Space Shuttle Enterprise

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

Created by NASA; uploaded by Bricktop.

• Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A fine candidate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Can't quite agree that it's "high quality". It's very grainy to me. BUT I support this as we aren't going to get a better picture, so the EV and historic nature of this picture makes it FP worthy in my eyes. gazhiley 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the irreplaceable loophole as gazhiley pointed out. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Grainy as anything, but alright for a historical image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Enterprise free flight.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 04:11:35 (UTC)

Reason

rare aerial photo of the popular Laguna Beach Resort

Articles in which this image appears

Laguna Beach, California

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

WPPilot

• Support as nominator --WPPilot 04:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice enough, well lit photo, but subjectively it looks tilted (fixable) and the resort is definitely cutoff at the right (not fixable). Also questionable whether EV is sufficient (the article has no mention of this resort) and you've only just added the image to the article contrary to the 7-day minimum recommendation. --jjron (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a series of shots, in the camera still that have better perspective and well update the shot to get a wider view. I do not understand what you mean by tilt? I was at 1200 feet and about a half mile offshore so "tilt" seems like a funny way to discribe something to me. Was unaware of the 7 day req. --WPPilot 05:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)WPPilot
    • Yeah, that's why I said 'subjectively' tilted. I guess the feeling I have is that central part of the building should be vertical or something like that (dunno, I haven't actually tried rotating this or anything to test it, it just looks a bit wonky to me). I'm still not entirely sure on the EV regardless, and simply adding mention of this resort to the article for the sake of nominating here would border on WP:ADVERTISING unless the place was notable in its own right. --jjron (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jjron. --ELEKHH^T 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron - mainly on the grounds that this resort doesn't have an article. Surely that's a must? gazhiley 08:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I fail to grasp the EV, and the crop at the right is a bit uncomfortable. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 01:42:21 (UTC)

Reason

Great EV, stunning, and extremely high-res. I saw how well this was doing at POTY and was shocked it didn't pass the first time two weeks ago). But since it was only due to lack of response, I felt it should be renominated.

Articles in which this image appears

Harlequin beetle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus (at Commons)

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 01:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous nom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large size, decent sharpness, and I like that the photo includes a scale so we know how big the creature is. Having a scale helps with EV in my opinion. --Pine^✉ 06:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Qualified! It looks like an artist painted the insect. Alborzagros (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JKadavoor Jee 08:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Acrocinus longimanus MHNT femelle.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 03:07:01 (UTC)

Reason

Great, detailed, and encyclopedic shot of Cupha erymanthis. The blurred background is a bit distracting, but I think otherwise the composition is fantastic.

Articles in which this image appears

Cupha erymanthis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor

• Support as nominator --ceranthor 03:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support maybe not perfect but still very good. --Pine^✉ 06:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No comments. I personally decided to refrain from self nominating or supporting my own works here. :) JKadavoor Jee 09:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quite good and sharp. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice and sharp. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A bit too warm perhaps but otherwise good --Muhammad(talk) 07:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rustic Cupha erymanthis by kadavoor.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:40:45 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Liocarcinus holsatus, Liocarcinus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans

Creator

Lycaon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JKadavoor Jee 09:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Professional quality and style, idenified by an expert. A well-reference little article to boot. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some noise on the rearmost legs, otherwise top quality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not a fan of the uneven lighting. JJ Harrison (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JJ, no real reason for uneven lighting here... — raekyt 00:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:51:06 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Schloss Johannisburg, Aschaffenburg

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User:Rainer Lippert (edit by Carschten)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Detail is a bit smeary and watercolourish at 100%, but it's a nice composition and shows the location well. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (Just about) Support as per Ðiliff «». gazhiley 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 12:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aschaffenburger Schloss, edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 10:52:23 (UTC)

Reason

Sattelite photo near natural colors showing the peninsula's features (alongside Baku and its harbor) and adjacent islets.

Articles in which this image appears

Absheron peninsula, Baku

FP category for this image

Space/Looking back

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 10:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Konullu (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are those tiretrack-like artefacts in the water normal and unavoidable? It's rather distracting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great satellite image. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The sea looks really artefacted to me - made up of a dimpled pattern, like tiretracks or a knitted jumper - and I've not heard anything yet to make me think this is unavoidable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that could be edited out by smudging since the surface looks almost entirely uniform. Brandmeister^talk 14:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The tracks seem consistent with other similar FPs we have, and I think it might just be unavoidable and something that's caused by the satellite: File:Hawaje-NoRedLine.jpg, File:Ireland from space edit.jpg, File:South Island blizzard 2003.jpg, File:Scandinavia.TMO2003050.jpg, File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpg. Spencer^T♦C 07:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, Support, then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 23:15:07 (UTC)

Reason

Coulda sworn I'd nominated this before... high quality scan of a portrait, thought to be a self-portrait by a notable artist.

Articles in which this image appears

Marie-Denise Villers +6

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Marie-Denise Villers

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's actually a lot more detail available through the Met's viewer. It would be possible to systematically extract the larger image in tiles and then reassemble it. This is not even technically illegal, although I'm sure the Met would prefer us not to do it. It would be time-consuming but might be worth the effort. Chick Bowen 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I remember seeing a tool for the GIMP which allows it to be reassembled very quickly (and I used it last year) but I can't recall where (don't remember the article, either. Some governor of New York). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not at all convinced there is "lot more detail available" with the Met's viewer. I just think it lets you view the original at 200%. I downloaded the "original" and resized it 200% in IrfanView. The Met's viewer version is slightly softer and I can't find any extra detail at all. -- Colin°^Talk 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Colin°^Talk 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Chick Bowen 15:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 06:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Villers Young Woman Drawing.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 12:40:53 (UTC)

Reason

Good depiction of the windfarm, striking a good balance between detail and overview with 10 of the 30 turbines visible. Compelling view making the reader want to know more. The previous nomination failed by a very narrow margin of 4.5 of 5 votes, but as consensus can change, I am renominating.

Articles in which this image appears

Barrow Offshore Wind Farm, Irish Sea, Walney Island, List of tallest buildings and structures in Barrow-in-Furness, Barrow-in-Furness

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Andy Dingley

• Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 12:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just looks so grainy to me - the sky is almost completely made of pixels, rather than a smooth image. Not quite the standard for FP IMO. gazhiley 14:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no argument about EV but there's no wow. We can barely see the windmills (which, I think, is sort of the idea of the windmill designers, but we're not recognizing their aesthetics here) and there's no sense that any sort of composition was applied to depicting them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense but you seem to place too much importance on wow. On wikipedia we consider EV to have a greater value than wow. --Muhammad(talk) 08:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do "we"? I could show you multiple noms from the last few months that have failed for lack of "wow"... It's a perfectly good reason to oppose - if people see it on the main page, are they gonna look at this picture and be inspired to read the article? Personally I wouldn't... Daniel's reason is perfectly fine... gazhiley 09:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes we do. See the criteria, no 3 --Muhammad(talk) 10:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • from your own link - "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" ie wow factor... gazhiley 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." --Muhammad(talk) 16:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • So neither of us are wrong then. I choose to base my oppose on the reason I have quoted, you choose to base your support on the reason you quoted. Each to their own... gazhiley 15:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support (original) as per my vote last time; still awaiting that non-destructive noise reduction. --jjron (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1. Good job on the NR. --jjron (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. Wow is not a requirement but I was wowed by the picture--Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Given this has to be taken at sea (or at very high zoom), some technical issues are forgiveable. Alt is probably better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 High EV, subject is depicted as well as possible considering the limitations inherent to depicting an object that is meant to have a small visual form. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 H. W. Calhoun (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 15:10:36 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

European flounder

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

User:Tiithunt

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It looked promising at thumbnail size, but at full size it is noisy and out of focus, sadly. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Disappointing in full size (above 15MP); but very good in reasonable size. Most pictures here are only in minimum size required. JKadavoor Jee 13:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason we have to go off of the full size and not the thumbnail, along with why the size requirements are so large, is that images have to be able to be resized as needed for use on and off Wikipedia as allowable per the license. In short, it's the full size image being nominated and that has to be useable, not the thumbnail. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what Jkadavoor means to say is that the picture is much larger than the size requirements, and if it was downsampled to a smaller size then most of the quality issues would have also looked better. So it shouldn't be judged for the worse for that. Also, if I might add, the quality seems quite good for underwater photography. Tomer T (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. JKadavoor Jee 05:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my reasoning above, the full image is not FP material IMO because of the noise. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per commons. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For underwater photography, I do think this is quite good, and much of it doesn't have noise issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Per Calhoun, below. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: upon further inspection of this image, it looks like it's actually not underwater photography and actually taken from behind glass. Looking at the bottom-right corner and the area around the flounder's mouth there's marks that makes it look like there's glass there. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 22:08:11 (UTC)

Reason

Helpful illustration of the concept of voxels and also a good 3D image in the article leaf.

Articles in which this image appears

Voxel, Leaf

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Commons user:SecretDisc

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose kind of a cool demonstration of the technology but doesn't really do anything special to demonstrate a leaf that a regular picture or video of a real leaf wouldn't while losing the quality of a real leaf. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This barely illustrates the concepts of a voxel at all, and a micro-CT rendering of a leaf showing its internal structure would have much more EV. I've added it to X-ray microtomography, where it should be more illustrative. I'm also wondering what the colours represent. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the colours are false colours, which is pretty standard - something meant primarily to distinguish features from each other, in this case, veins from leaf tissue. Admittedly, I'm more familiar with this sort of false colours from electron microscopy, where "colour" lacks meaning anyway (very small objects, smaller than the wavelength of optical light, are too small to have individual colour, but it's often beneficial to use false colour to help distinguish parts more clearly visible in 3D than 2D, and I'm fairly sure shadows are generated onto the 2D image created from the 3D information as well.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 23:15:52 (UTC)

Reason

Very few copies of Blake's original works exist, and this is, while not as big as I'd prefer for FPC (slightly under recommended size), still decently sized, with sufficient size to get the detail in, and rather attractive.

Articles in which this image appears

The Lamb

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Literary_illustrations

Creator

William Blake

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very good picture. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note (for others to consider) at 1,384 × 1,892 pixels, the image is under the minimum size requirements. Although I would opt to keep the wide border for the reasons stated, that also has to be considered when thinking about the size of the file. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did note that it was undersize in my statement, but I apologise if this was insufficient emphasis. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Adam, somehow I missed that part of your nomination. In any case, I've save the viewer the question of exactly what dimensions it is. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, probably for the best, if this one passes, it should pass in full knowledge of the limitation, so a little more emphasis isn't a problem. And there's a much bigger Blake file up for FPC as well [Song of Los, just above this]. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While this is a scan not the original so it doesn't really fall under the historical exception I question the feasibility of getting a bigger scan of this to upload so there's no reason not to give the size a pass. It's of high quality and high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Valuable since it features the author's own illustration. Brandmeister^talk 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for historic value. I wish the image was clearer and less faded but with paper this old I can accept this being as it is. We can do a D&R if we get something better. --Pine^✉ 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Blake - Songs of Innocence and Experience - The Lamb.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 23:28:21 (UTC)

Reason

A prminently-used illustration by Blake, rather well-done, and in his interesting style. I should probably note that Blake does not tend to have straight borders at all, hence the slightly irregular shape.

Articles in which this image appears

The Song of Los, William Blake

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Literary_illustrations

Creator

William Blake

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ceranthor 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Blake - Sconfitta - Frontispiece to The Song of Los.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]