Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/January-2019

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 1 Jan 2019 at 04:06:58 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, well lit, encyclopedic pose.

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow-faced Honeyeater

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportVote updated to Replace below Again, excellent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 06:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- So cute - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This image is similar but superior to an existing FP, so replace File:Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov07.jpg with this image. Support if that is not possible. MER-C 12:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. Different poses do have different information. It is one of those GDFL ones, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominated image displaced the existing FP in the article. MER-C 18:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh. Then Replace. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 19:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace old Featured Picture. Only 1 image should be featured for this bird. Both are lovely photographs though. Mattximus (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @MyDreamSparrow and JJ Harrison: Are the two of you alright with "Replace?" As things stand, I'm not 100% sure we have a clear quorum yet. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 14:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mydreamsparrow and JJ Harrison: Trying this ping again... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. Sorry I'm not well trained to look at Wikipedia's new-fangled notifications yet! JJ Harrison (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Mattximus and Adam Replace old FP : DreamSparrow ^Chat 14:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Armbrust, looking at the above I see 5 users who favor "replace", 4 users in bold letters and 1 user (the nominator) in their answer "Fine with me" to Adam's question: "Are the two of you alright with Replace?". So I see consensus to replace. I don't understand the no promote? Bammesk (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See "How to comment for Candidate Images" in the lead of WP:FPC. "Replace" isn't an option. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. "Replace" implied "delist" (replacement can only happen after a delist), so the intent of the participants was "delist and replace", but the participants didn't express their intent in the proper format. I suggest moving the nom to the section: "Older nominations requiring additional input from users" and then pinging the participants asking them to express their intent in the proper format. Not promoting, at this point, effectively ignores the intent of the participants. Bammesk (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But replace requires the nominated picture should be featured, no? I may renominate these as D&R when participation next picks up. MER-C 07:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bammesk The problem is that in a "candidate nomination" delist & replace isn't a valid option either. You either support or oppose the image being promoted (including their weak variants).
        MER-C The D&R process isn't, IMO, really there to replace images with a completely different one. This was discussed in December 2013, but nothing came of it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's reasonably clear that the voting participants were of the view that the image should be promoted. I think whether the other image should be delisted ought to be separate issue and a corresponding delist nomination. Similar story with the oystercatcher image. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've gone ahead and renominated both images. If the result is promote, then I'll replace the other usages and nominate the older images for delisting. MER-C 03:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 04:10:15 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image

Articles in which this image appears

Australian Raven

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Almost perfect. Tiny bit of blur on the tail and back, but the rest is sharp enough to count the individual barbs on the feathers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 06:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 12:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Turns out we have an existing FP of this one as well: File:Corvus coronoides.jpg. Replace that if possible. MER-C 19:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @MER-C: In this case, I think the other one has very high value in Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology) that the more formal view could not replace, so would vote against replacement. Both have high value in at least one article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 14:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with this point. MER-C 16:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Qono (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jusdafax (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Corvus coronoides - Doughboy Head.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 04:14:51 (UTC)

Reason

It's of high quality and encyclopedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Sooty Oystercatcher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A fine level of detail, and every bit of the bird is sharp. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 06:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominated image is functionally equivalent but superior to File:Haematopus fuliginosus Bruny.jpg, an existing FP by the nominator. The nominated image displaced the existing FP in the article. Replace it with this image, support if that is not possible. MER-C 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks MER-C. I'm happy enough with replacement. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment lovely picture, and I'm happy to support, but I don't think we should have 2 featured photographs of the exact same bird... we should decide on one. Mattximus (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, I'd oppose that statement - different views can convey different information. In this case, I'm more neutral. If replacement is the consensus other than my vote, treat my vote as replace. I do think this whole replace thing feels like it could unintentionally derail the nomination, though, so we should probably be careful about that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 14:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace – and delist existing FP, nominator agrees with replacement, above. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per MER-C, I do suggest Replace, if that is not possible support this : -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Armbrust, looking at the above I see 5 users who favor "replace", 3 users in bold letters and 2 users in plain text. So I don't understand the close? Bammesk (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See "How to comment for Candidate Images" in the lead of WP:FPC. "Replace" isn't an option. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. "Replace" implied "delist" (replacement can only happen after a delist), so the intent of the participants was "delist and replace", but the participants didn't express their intent in the proper format. I suggest moving the nom to the section: "Older nominations requiring additional input from users" and then pinging the participants asking them to express their intent in the proper format. Not promoting, at this point, effectively ignores the intent of the participants. Bammesk (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bammesk The problem is that in a "candidate nomination" delist & replace isn't a valid option either. You either support or oppose the image being promoted (including their weak variants). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2019 at 02:21:14 (UTC)

Reason

As far as I can tell, the most iconic image of her, insofar as it was widely published (see documentation on the file description page, which includes the press release.) Rather deeply in shadow, but that's an artistic decision. I've adjusted exposure to bring her out of the shadow a bit.

Articles in which this image appears

Leila Usher, Susan B. Anthony

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Underwood & Underwood, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 02:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm somewhat hesitant to support this due to the subject blending into the background (not your fault - I suspect the contrast wasn't there to begin with). Otherwise good EV. Weak Support, I guess? MER-C 05:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 18:47:32 (UTC)

Reason

iconic photograph. After a long debate, it finally appears that the copyright was not renewed.

Articles in which this image appears

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II

Creator

Joe Rosenthal

• Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this jpeg version due to strong artifacts, either from editing or jpeg compression. The sky is heavily speckled - compare with the png or tif versions. --Janke | Talk 20:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Janke: I could propose File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg, but overall, I think this one is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the jpeg artifacts. The nom image has a lot more detail than the png and tif versions. Support (revised my vote below) , iconic and good quality for a 1940s war photo. Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a decent version of this iconic photograph: the EV is huge. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this new version with less noticeable grain & artifacts. --Janke | Talk 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment what is the source for the copyright not being renewed?©Geni (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading the arguments on Commons [1], [2], [3], [4], no one has established that copyright was renewed. The summary of Commons arguments are: copyright might have been renewed and that such renewal could not be confirmed in the renewal records [5]. Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  On a sidenote: the photo was published without a copyright notice in a 2016 book [6] [7] of 100 influential photographs by Time magazine. 32 of the 100 photos have a copyright notice and 68 do not, the Iwo Jima photo does not: [8]. This gives additional credence to the public domain arguments on Commons.
• @Geni: Also this LoC copyright notice. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- KTC (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 12:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've not yet looked closely at the copyright arguments, and will defer to Commons folk to sort that out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GMG^talk 14:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all versions, I'll leave it to others to decide which is best. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've collected links to the copyright discussions on c:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the retouched version from Bammesk should be uploaded as a separate file (c:COM:OVERWRITE). While it looks better overall, some details were also lost, so the original needs to be kept as a separate file. If Bammesk uploads the restored version as a separate file and we're voting on that, you can count a support vote from me as well. I'll vote more clearly above. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found another version with less compression artifacts. The sky still looks speckled, I suspect the photo was saved as a .gif at some point. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a retouched version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Yann, Bammesk, Nick-D, Janke, KTC, MER-C, The NMI User, Rhododendrites, and GreenMeansGo: An alternate image was added the nominations. Please update your !vote to indicate which version(s) you support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh cool. I see lots of dust spot removal, which I wasn't going to fuss about given the nature of the photo. Is there anything else I'm missing? GMG^talk 21:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: the sky was blurred. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I uploaded another retouch, Retouched 2, made from the higher quality original that Alexis Jazz gave us here. Both retouched noms are worthy of support. My upload has less artifacts and is a bit sharper along soldier/background boundaries, smoother left valley, smoother background between soldier's arms/legs, and I touched up the lower left edge. Also touched up a couple of spots based on the negative image here: [9], [10](no longer so, see below). I Support both retouches but prefer Retouch 2 (revised vote below). Bammesk (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Either of the versions are OK for me, but Retouched 2 is slightly better. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've improved my retouched version a bit. You may have to refresh the page/image in your browser. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'll say that I prefer some retouched version to the original, but my retouching expertise is mediocre at best, and so I don't pretend to have an authoritative opinion on which version is better. GMG^talk 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer retouch #2. MER-C 18:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: can you say why? Perhaps I can improve my version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retouch 1 has sufficiently improved over #2 in the time since I wrote that comment. I now prefer #1 as the specs that were there are there no longer. MER-C 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this after the dust has settled, I prefer #2 due to the white streak on the side. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose I prefer #2, but two comments: (1) why is the [rivet?] on the helmet of the soldier on the right noticeably brighter in just that version? (2) in both retouches there's a space between the leftmost and second leftmost soldiers, around waist level, that looks to be actually a gap between them rather than a blemish on the photo itself, but it's smoothed out... (in case that isn't clear I've added an annotation to that image on Commons here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a gap but actually light that is reflected off of the handle of a holstered knife, more easily seen in File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg. I've corrected my version accordingly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhododendrites, I don't understand your first question? About question 2: as I said above, I used the negative image here: [11], [12] as a guide. The gap is smaller in the negative, that's what I went by. However looking at the negative more carefully, it has bleeding (or diffusion) because it is old, which would make the gaps smaller. So I did a recheck of all gaps, and compared the print gaps to the negative gaps, and it turns out all print gaps are a few pixels wider than the negative gaps. So going strictly by the negative is not a good idea (because of the bleeding). I redid the gap and did an upload (also redid another tiny gap/spot at shoulder level, plus helmet of left soldier, the things I had relied on the negative for). Thanks for the question! Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rhododendrites: Can you say what you mean in your first question? Nothing “on the helmet of the soldier on the right” is “noticeably brighter” in any version! Bammesk (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been following and I'd just like to say that maybe this discussion is not yet ripe to be closed. The images are evolving, which is ultimately for the good of the project(s), and this is an iconic image of the type we don't often see discussed. GMG^talk 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I agree. I'm not sure if we are done retouching (unless someone points out flaws in my version, I am) but if we are it still leaves us with three images to pick from. Since I created one of them, I support all three. There are arguments for sticking to the original and between the retouched versions it'll largely be matter of taste. Bammesk filled in the gaps one way, I did it another way. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, Commons promoted the original. MER-C 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually 16 of 18 votes on Commons here were for a restored version uploaded at 02:11, 29 August 2018. Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC) . . . Obviously the higher quality original uploaded later at 09:16, 4 September 2018, is more deserving of promotion, but not when there is a cleaned up version of it, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• So how exactly ought we go about finding some resolution to this nomination? GMG^talk 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @GreenMeansGo: Everyone, who already voted, should indicate which version(s) they support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I swapped my preference to retouch 2. Putting my admin and ex-FPC closer hat on, I would now close this as promote retouch 2 if I hadn't had voted - the choice is between the retouches, and #2 has more first preferences than #1. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-pinging participants. This has been open now for almost two months, and we do need to try to find some type of resolution.
  @Yann:@Janke:@Bammesk:@Nick-D:@Geni:@Alexis Jazz:@KTC:@The NMI User:@Rhododendrites:@Armbrust:
  GMG^talk 12:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: As I said, I support all three. But I will say this: when I added to/updated Wikipedias, I used the original. Leaving it to the Wikipedias to switch to a retouched version. No Wikipedia (zero, not Norsk Wikipedia) (zero, the number, not Wikipedia Zero) made the switch. - Alexis Jazz 18:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support retouched1 I think this is an improvement on the original, and retouched2 looks a little bit washed out Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I very slightly prefer Retouched 2, because of the area to the right of and below the leftmost soldier's right foot looks a lot better in this one. I think that tilts the balance to let this be closed. @Armbrust:? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at this some more, I withdraw my support for "both" and now support retouched 2 only. A) The original and retouched 1 have a white strip on the lower-left edge of the image. This is fixed in retouched 2. B) In retouched 1, the noise reduction (blurring) of the sky area is uneven, some areas are heavily blurred, other areas not at all. For example, in retouched 1 the sky area near the lower-right edge of the image, and sky areas adjacent to soldier's bodies have no blurring and are identical to the original image. In retouched 2 the sky noise is blurred uniformly everywhere. C) Looking at the original image, the background field (the far hill behind the foreground rubble) has similar noise/grain as the sky. That area is slightly denoised in retouched 2, not in retouched 1. D) The original has a scanning artifact along the edge of the flagpole (bottom portion of flagpole), visible when enlarged, say at 200%. The artifact appears as a white line along the pole's left edge. There are similar artifacts elsewhere along the edge of soldiers' clothing. These artifacts are removed in retouched 2, not in retouched 1. Bammesk (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal retouched 2.jpg --feminist (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Promoted Retouched 2 version feminist (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 18:03:04 (UTC)

Reason

This is one I've been eyeing a long time... and is my second restoration of the image, because there was a higher-quality negative I could restore from. Of course... *slightly insane laugh* But no matter. It's done.

Articles in which this image appears

War pigeon, Swiss Armed Forces

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/WWI

Creator

Anonymous/Swiss Federal Archives; restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 18:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw It looks like there's still a little more detail to be brought out that GIMP ate. Fuck. Third restoration it is! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 08:34:14 (UTC)

Reason

Getting things started during/after the holidays with this well executed casual photo of a notable person.

Articles in which this image appears

Masih Alinejad

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

Kambiz Foroohar

• Support as nominator – MER-C 08:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Awesome quality, good EV and well composed portrait : -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Was kind of eyeing this one myself. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 13:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Brilliant candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great EV and a fascinating portrait chsh (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent portrait with good EV Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per my support at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Masih Alinejad.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 09:34:39 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, of good encyclopedic value, Featured and Valued on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

House crow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

GerifalteDelSabana

• Support as nominator – GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Transcluding nomination. MER-C 09:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : EV ????? : -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article specifically states the crow feeds on refuse produced by humans. This image shows exactly that. It is used only in a gallery in an image packed article, though. MER-C 05:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. In that way it deserves Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 07:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As MER-C points out, the article is over-illustrated, and this image is only used in a gallery. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comment above. I'm sure with quite a bit more prose many images from the gallery can be promoted to the article text (including this one) because they carry distinct information, but now is not the time. MER-C 06:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 02:25:12 (UTC)

Reason

Is of a high technical standard, high resolution and has a free license.

Articles in which this image appears

Kuah#Dataran Lang

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

SNN95

• Support as nominator – SNN95 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - CyberTroopers (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You need 100 edits to support or oppose an image. MER-C 04:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – sorry but not high enough quality, it's shot with a smartphone and the file size is small (473KB). Almost any dedicated camera would produce a higher quality image. Bammesk (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Image needs a perspective correction, the detail isn't there, and the sky has plenty of JPEG artifacts. MER-C 05:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, high quality of image. Chongkian (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I approved it as a quality image on Commons, but I don't see it meeting the FP standards here or there technically. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 04:52:50 (UTC)

Reason

Portrait of one of the important justices to sit on the Supreme Court of India in robes, there lies the EV. Justice Thomas was awarded Padma Bhushan, the third-highest civilian award in the Republic of India in 2007. Good quality and well composed.

Articles in which this image appears

Justice K. T. Thomas, List of Marthoma Syrian Christians, St. Albert's College

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Mydreamsparrow

• Support as nominator – DreamSparrow ^Chat 04:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ah, you finally nominated it! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 14:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – the personality section of his article says "5,00,000 people are living in at most agony", is that 500,000 or 5,000,000? If so many people were negatively affected, why was he awarded by the government? It's confusing. Can the article's neutrality tag be resolved? Bammesk (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  See Indian numbering system. Anyway, I've removed it under the BLP policy. MER-C 04:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  MER-C, still the photograph meets the FP criteria, is it not so ? -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 20:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost. I have a couple of minor, fixable concerns - lack of sharpness, slight overcompression and some CA. Do you still have the RAW? I'll support a higher quality export to JPEG and reduction of the CA. MER-C 05:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  MER-C, corrected as suggested. Y : DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The compression and sharpness are better, but are you sure you've performed a lens correction? The white balance has changed (in a way I prefer) but the chromatic aberration - the green tinge on the shoulders - is worse. MER-C 07:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Y -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. MER-C 12:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – EV (though the wall mounted frame behind him is distracting and unfortunate). DreamSparrow: he retired in 2002 and the file description says the image was shot in 2018. Is 2018 correct? Bammesk (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk, True, it was shot in 2018 : DreamSparrow ^Chat 03:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Justice K. T. Thomas.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 14:24:54 (UTC)

Reason

The size is massive, so the fact that it's somewhat grainy at full resolution isn't much of an issue: A slight downscale, [13], say, would show it still has loads of quality to it. I like the action pose. It's an excellent photo of the highest-ranking female chess player in the world.

Articles in which this image appears

Hou Yifan

FP category for this image

Either Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Andreas Kontokanis

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 14:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I love the game -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a shame about the glare on her glasses, but it would have been unavoidable and this is otherwise an excellent portrait. The EV is very strong. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Photographing someone at a tournament has advantages and disadvantages. The great atmosphere and poses are advantages, but things like the glare... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 23:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trade-off seems worthwhile here: the fact that the photo depicts the subject playing chess at a tournament (the reason for her notability) more than offsets the glare issue. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I uploaded a slightly denoised version. The image was shot at ISO 1250, the noise/grain showed at full size, especially the white parts of the eyeballs were distracting. The denoise radius is 1 pixel so effectively no loss in details. Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to support this, but I find the lens flares to be too distracting. MER-C 05:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you mean the bright circles to the left of her face, this image [14] shows more of them, and these images [15], [16] show what they are. Being part of the bokeh and not too bright, I am Ok with it, given the EV. Bammesk (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That should make it easier to perform a selective darkening. I don't care if it is removed completely, it just needs to be darkened enough to not be distracting. MER-C 05:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think any of the participants would mind if you make the change and upload on top of the existing file, or as separate file. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Still a little distracting, but definitely better. Support. Revert if unwanted. MER-C 08:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Black is tough to photograph, but her hair looks rather inky. Sca (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is grainy and I find the glasses distracting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hou Yifan (29762728494) (cropped).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 08:10:04 (UTC)

Reason

High EV underwater photo (which makes up for the technical shortcomings) that is featured on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Round ribbontail ray

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish

Creator

Rucha Karkarey

• Support Edit 1 as nominator – MER-C 08:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – SNN95 (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Nice example of protective coloration, I guess, but lack of contrast makes this image difficult to access visually. Sca (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - Nice picture with good EV, though the right side is a bit tightly cropped. Comment to Sca, its actually behavioral exhibition of the subject, bit more contrast may destroy the EV IMO. -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Imperfect, per Sca and DreamSparrow, but given the difficulties of underwater composition and the value of the demonstration of its camouflage, I'd say it's good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 18:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1, Oppose Original The edit by PJeganathan on this file is awful - the shadows are blown, the highlights are blown and there is an unnatural level of contrast. It's not encyclopaedic. This isn't the case with the original image uploaded by Ruchakarkarey. I would have reverted it if not for WP:FPC and COM:FP etc. I've uploaded a new edit with a much more minor adjustment of contrast relative to the original and the use of a camera shake reduction filter to improve the sharpness quite a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1, Oppose Original Wow the new version is much much better. Mattximus (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 --Yann (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Porcupine ray from Lakshadweep JJH edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 07:53:56 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high resolution

Articles in which this image appears

Enceladus, etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

• Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a renomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Enceladusstripes cassini.jpg. Weak support as before: Cassini-Huygens has been decommissioned, and there is no better equivalent image on [17]. MER-C 12:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, still has same issues noted at Commons FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before. This isn't Commons, we judge by the encyclopedic value, and this isn't replaceable without sending another spacecraft. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per prev nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 15:59:25 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high res. Representative of American tank operations during this period of the Vietnam War.

Articles in which this image appears

Operation Lincoln (Vietnam), 69th Armor Regiment, M48 Patton

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War

Creator

United States Army Signal Corps photographer

• Support as nominator – Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - poor composition. I agree with Yann on Commons that this should be landscape format and the crop on the left is too tight. MER-C 04:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per opposition here and at Commons, mine included. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to motion blur / camera shake and weird colors (the latter probably due to scan from negative/slide). --Janke | Talk 10:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 02:59:36 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopaedic image

Articles in which this image appears

Golden-headed Cisticola

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 22:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - detail on wing is obscured by artifacts. I'm afraid you've overcooked the JPEG compression on this one. MER-C 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cisticola exilis - Cornwallis Rd.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 02:59:25 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality image to compliment a featured article

Articles in which this image appears

Scarlet myzomela

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I love the composition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Mattximus (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Myzomela sanguinolenta 1 - Windsor Downs Nature Reserve.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 02:59:28 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo of what the article fairly describes as a 'shy bird'

Articles in which this image appears

Noisy pitta, Pitta (genus)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 09:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. Mattximus (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pitta versicolor - Kembla Heights.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 03:24:24 (UTC)

Reason

I owe this image a renomination. The original nomination reason was "It's of high quality and encyclopedic value". On reflection, it's a little premature to consider delisting of File:Haematopus fuliginosus Bruny.jpg. I still think the FP star should be moved, so if/when the nominated image is featured, I'll do a substitution and separate delisting nomination then.

Articles in which this image appears

Sooty Oystercatcher (and potentially others)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – MER-C 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : As far as there is no proposal for "delist and replace", I support this. DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aye, I did me best to sort those ones out, but.... it gets confusing when you change the scope of a nom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 16:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't mind delisting and replacing, but I do not think we should have 2 pictures of the exact same bird featured at once. Why not delist and replce? Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mattximus: The last one failed to be promoted, or the old delisted because it was turned into a delist and replace after starting, and that's not permitted. And nothing will ever get delisted pre-emptively. I, for one, would instantly vote "oppose" if anyone tried that. Arguing procedure isn't helpful here; what you want is a policy change that allows that kind of change to delist and replace. Also, realise that there's problems with that in and of itself - look at the crow one, where one of the usages of the alternative was very high value for an entirely different class of articles. In that case, a delist and replace would fail, and it couldn't be turned into a promote.

We either need to separate them, or make rules for adding replacements to a nomination that's ongoing. Anything else is just going to be hugely problematic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 04:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should be promoted once other image is delisted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Charlesjsharp: There's no reason to delist if another one isn't promoted first. The images are not so bad to deserve delisting on their own merits, and all have some minor usages. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 04:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone design a delist and replace? There's a facility in VI to do it. I'd be happy to support if the FP nominator (not the author) promises to delist once the new image is promoted. Can we agree to that and add to nomination guidelines? See talk page --Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Charlesjsharp: It's a little more complicated than that. The problem is there's no way to move between a nomination and a delist and replace, and there are some subjects - and I'd argue birds can be one - where there's a little ambiguity as to whether an image should be delisted if a new one is added.

Let's move this to WT:FPC, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 07:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• support as the nominator will delist the exisitng FP as soon as this is promoted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 03:29:24 (UTC)

Reason

I owe this image a renomination. The original nomination reason was "High quality, well lit, encyclopedic pose." On reflection, it's a little premature to consider delisting of File:Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov07.jpg. I still think the FP star should be moved, so if/when the nominated image is featured, I'll do a substitution and separate delisting nomination then.

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow-faced Honeyeater (and potentially others)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – MER-C 03:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : As far as there is no proposal for "delist and replace", I support this too. DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why not delist and replace? I don't see the purpose of having two simultaneous featured pictures of the exact same bird. Mattximus (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the intended result, but I can't get there in one step: see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg. MER-C 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should be promoted once other image is delisted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• support as the nominator has promised to delist the exisitng FP as soon as this is promoted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 15:22:12 (UTC)

Reason

Just look at it. Carved from one block of marble. Click it two or three times to enlarge detail - that's where the fun is. Self-explanatory. "How'd he do that?"

Articles in which this image appears

Veiled Christ, Statue, the location site and the sculptor's page

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Liberonapoli

• Support as nominator – Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. The image is nowhere near FP-quality. Thanks for your interest, though, Randy Kryn. You may want to read up on the WP:Featured Picture Criteria and browse the existing images to get an idea of what we look for in an FP. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I doubt the image's copyright status. I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, remove this amazing image of one of the most acclaimed statues in the world from Wikipedia. Who is "we"? And why isn't it feature quality? No explanation given, and the premises for deleting it are all guesswork with three "probably" reasons involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul012 has uploaded another enlargeable image of the statue (which could do with some horizontal cropping). Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Randy Kryn WP:FP?#2 says that "Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This one expands to 1588 by 834. Why wouldn't that size qualify, and why limit the featured picture candidates to such a high bar? Having a discussion on Paul012's talk page, and am surprised to learn that only one marble statue image has ever made it to featured picture. Can this lack of marble statue images be remedied by a change in the wording? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - unambiguously fails resolution criteria (1500x1500 is the minimum unless there are strong mitigating reasons). MER-C 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How did that become the minimum? This one is 1588 by 834, seems large enough, and a 1500 by 1500 requirement is one that instantly excludes many good images. Maybe a revisit of this guideline is in order. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your enthusiasm about the subject is noted. This subject likely admits a FP but it's quite clear that the statue deserves a professional grade photographic reproduction. File:Two Bacchantes and a Bull (Vatican Museums) September 2015.1a.jpg is a lot closer to the standard required. (I should note that the FP criteria have required 1500x1500 since October 2012...) MER-C 21:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, bellow the size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 11:05:03 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of endangered bird; considered a separate species (Monticola erythronotus) by some authorities.

Articles in which this image appears

Amber Mountain rock thrush, Montagne d'Ambre National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A lovely shot. Nice use of bokeh to separate the bird from the background. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. MER-C 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Per above -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Amber mountain rock thrush (Monticola sharpei erythronotus) male 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 11:14:03 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image. FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Short-horned chameleon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An excellent shot. How'd you get the black behind it? Night sky and lighting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They cannot be found easily during the day, but at night they sleep on small braches near the ground so that predators can't get them without disturbing the branch. I used a low-level on-camera flash and hand-held off-camera slave unit for the main lighting. There was a lot of ill-informed dabte on Commons FP about the ethics of flash use. Chameleons have (compared to us) tunnel vision so they will hardly notice a flash from, say 20 degreees off line. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very nicely done! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 20:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent photo. From the Commons FPC, it's a night shot - these chameleons are easier to find at night. MER-C 10:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support :-- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Short-horned chameleon (Calumma brevicorne) female Andasibe.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 03:51:34 (UTC)

Reason

A beautiful set design illustration that, in a slightly less finished state, has been stable in Rigoletto's lead for around three years.

Articles in which this image appears

Rigoletto

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Philippe Chaperon, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 03:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 10:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yann (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it possible to copyright a scan of a PD artwork? (Retouching, i.e. removal of imperfections, being the only change.) If not, then the copyright info is misleading. --Janke | Talk 09:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Janke: I live in the UK, so yes, one can copyright a restoration. Other places it's more ambiguous. I tend to just release copyright unless the project was incredibly massive (and don't do it as much anymore at all; this restoration was started two years ago), hence why it hasn't come up much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 20:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks appealing to me and it's just fine to captivate readers from the main page. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Philippe Chaperon - Rigoletto.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 03:52:04 (UTC)

Reason

Saw this at Commons FPC. The high EV composition would be a better match for FPC here than on Commons. (Also the run of animals needs interrupting.)

Articles in which this image appears

Electric match

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Lucasbosch

• Support as nominator – MER-C 03:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image is heavily manipulated, but the only one that might possibly deceive in any misleading way is removing the motion blur on the lead wires. But then, that just imitates a faster shutter speed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 04:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Nice one -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV. --Yann (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above. --Janke | Talk 09:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as creator. Thanks MER-C for nominating it here, I didn't know about this place! Lucasbosch (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good example of a picture saying a thousand words. JJ Harrison (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not really a fan of collages which don't appear to be obviously so. I'd like the image better if the horizontal separation between the matches were great enough to make it clear that they are distinct images joined together. But that would ruin the composition. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my !vote at Commons. Here, it gets a boost due to high EV. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Exploding E match collage.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 14:15:56 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution copy of an iconic photograph

Articles in which this image appears

The Steerage, Photography, Alfred Stieglitz, Fine-art photography, Steerage, Princeton University Art Museum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Alfred Stieglitz

• Support as nominator It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. – Yann (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is another version of this, also from Google Art Project, that I've added as Alt 1. It's smaller and less clean, but also has detail the other version is missing; I'd suspect it's from a different original print. (It also doesn't have the skew, which I think is an improvement unless it's an intentional artistic part of the work.) I'm not sure if it's more desirable, but it seems to introduce some questions that are worthy of consideration. TSP (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The pink stain is an issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The overall sepia tint? That can easily be edited (if we understand it wasn't the photographer's intent); just as the skew can be fixed on the other one. The bigger question is making sure whatever we feature is as high quality a version as possible; which generally means basing it on the highest quality possible source. In this case I'm not sure there is a clear winner. TSP (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not sepia, but pink. I made a real black and white version, which can be compared: File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project, from Getty, grayscale.jpg. I don't see any reason to choose this one: smaller, more noisy, etc. If you want to look at other versions, File:The Steerage MET DP232922.jpg is better than your alternative, but still smaller than the original. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the Met version may be better than either. Raw pixel count isn't everything if it just represents more grain rather than any more detail - I think the Met version may actually be the best despite being the smallest. The people along the rail all have visible expressions in the Met version, but many are blurs of grain in both the others. It would need cleaning up and probably a contrast adjustment. (Google Art has nine different versions of this photo, all with different merits.) TSP (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I made a grayscale version with some contrat ajustment: File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg. Do you agree to replace your alternative with this one? I would eventually do some restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure - replaced. TSP (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Alt 2 This isn't an image captured in greyscale, this was a sepia image. Two different copies are both sepia, and we're going to arbitrarily change that?! No. We shouldn't make such changes without darn good reasons, especially in the undocumented way this one was, where there's no strong indication the image was modified like that except the filename - which doesn't say "It was changed" just "It's in greyscale", and doesn't link the original.

Seriously. We're nominating this in part as a formative work of art, then are changing the colours? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 10:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much we know about the photographer's original intent in terms of colouration; Google Art Project has ten different versions of this from different prints, which show a fair range of different shades; and I don't know how much that would have changed with the age of each print?

In any case, we also have the original scan from the MET which has the same detail level without recolouration, so that could be considered another alt; though it is a lot yellower than most of the other prints. Ultimately there are dozens of possible versions of this that could be nominated. TSP (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but literally none of the versions are greyscale. I'm inclined to go with the Met version, just because I trust their colour fidelity a bit more. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 03:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Do you have any reference showing that the autthor intended to make it sepia? So far, it is only the effect of time on old prints. And none of our copies are really sepia, but rather different shades of pink. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Things don't just become sepia over time, it's down to how the print is made. See Photographic print toning Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I checked a few spots on the Metropolitan Museum image, and all are Hue 30 or higher, which is pretty solidly in orange, so I'm not sure how you're getting pink. Are you sure your monitor's calibrated? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I uploaded a real sepia version. You can see the the differences. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 15:11:35 (UTC)

Reason

Great EV and good quality astro picture.

Articles in which this image appears

NGC 772

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

Goranen, restored and retouched by Benison P Baby

• Support as nominator – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Needs more exposure, details are lost. The previous (original) image is slightly better, shows more detail in dark areas, but even that loses a lot of details. If we could find a larger image with the extra detail not visible in this FPC, that could be supportable. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a large enough photo with shadow details like this: [18] --Janke | Talk 09:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - underexposed. The image loses EV because the tidal tails and other effects that result from the interactions with the satellite galaxies (top and top left) are below the surface brightness (detection) threshold of this image. MER-C 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 14:27:57 (UTC)

Reason

high resolution copy of an iconic photograph

Articles in which this image appears

The Pond—Moonlight, List of most expensive photographs

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Edward Steichen / Google Art Project

• Support as nominator One of the most expensive photograph ever, sold for US $2.9 million in 2006. Only 3 original versions exist, and each is unique. – Yann (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "The Pond—Moonlight is an early photograph created by manually applying light-sensitive gums, giving the final print more than one color" - given that, is it correct to present it in black and white? Admittedly the original scan doesn't show much colour either; all the other language Wikipedias with an article on it (and our article on Steichen) use this version (I'm guessing from a different print), which is lower-resolution but seems to do a much better job showcasing the unique aspects of this particular photo. TSP (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the scan is only a black and white copy. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - a black and white scan is not a good representation of this work which notable for its colour. I'd recommend it be replaced by this version in articles. TSP (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TSP. This is definitely a featureable photo, but this B&W reproduction is not. MER-C 12:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 13:01:50 (UTC)

Reason

Amazing shot of NGC 2170 with a very good EV and exposure

Articles in which this image appears

NGC 2170

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

Rogelio Bernal Andreo

• Support as nominator – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - lacks the "wow" of the best astrophotos, the article is also just a stub, thus low EV. --Janke | Talk 17:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why the EV is low. EV of this image is that its the lead image of the article, even though its a stub. EV is usually calculated in terms of the image's EV in the article, not on the size of the article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for FPs on the main page is to entice viewers to read the article. In this case, it would be a great disappointment. Thus, IMHO, low EV. --Janke | Talk 21:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - loses EV due to the wide field of view. Yes, the stub article concern matters here - I can't easily tell where the nebula ends. Does it include the two regions to the left of the main nebula? There are also (brown) dust clouds throughout the image. MER-C 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 10:49:49 (UTC)

Reason

This was nominated during the quietness of the Christmas period, when things were failing to reach quorum left and right. It was only one vote short - with @The Herald: stating afterwards that they were sorry they missed it, and that I should ping them when I renominated it, so it basically had five votes. So, we've picked back up, the new year has started; let's bring some suffragettes into it with us. (Previous nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carrie Chapman Catt)

Articles in which this image appears

Carrie Chapman Catt, League of Women Voters, National American Woman Suffrage Association

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Joint Suffrage Procession Committee(?), restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 10:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Per nom : DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Would've done it before. Good luck this time... The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 12:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. Mattximus (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my support at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Carrie Chapman Catt - National Woman's Party Records.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 01:36:48 (UTC)

Reason

Far better and more accurate than most depictions, beautifully coloured.

Articles in which this image appears

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln + 20 or so

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War

Creator

After T. M. McAllister; restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm guessing the colour splodge around Booth's face is origiinal. --Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of typical of hand-colouring: People get a little sloppy. It's not exactly damage, so I'm not sure if it should be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, definitely not. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Charlesjsharp: That'd be my instinct as well; just I know of people who have argued otherwise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 07:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 11:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lincoln assassination slide c1900 - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 08:20:04 (UTC)

Reason

Highly detailed reproduction of this historic map. Last nomination (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Turgot map of Paris) ended up inconclusive (4-1) however I feel this set still merits the star. This is a set nomination. The full image and all 20 individual plates above (20 images altogether) are all nominated.

Articles in which this image appears

Turgot map of Paris

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Michel-Étienne Turgot

• Support as nominator – MER-C 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• From the article: "Additionally, there is one simplified general map with a 4 x 5 grid showing the layout of the 20 sectional maps" - shouldn't this be included in the set and on the page as well? Otherwise, looking at the images, I mean, you could restore them a bit. There are some spots and such, but they're so high-detail that it doesn't entirely seem worth it. But I would like to know about the missing piece. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the images is of two pieces: File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 18-19 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg. MER-C 12:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe Adam's referring to File:Turgot map Paris KU general map.jpg. The other sheets make up a single whole, so it makes sense for them to be nominated together, but personally I'm ambivalent on whether the key sheet should be included - it could be for completeness, but it doesn't have the same value as the main work. It doesn't currently appear in the article, and I can't see why it would ever appear in any other article. TSP (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it clearly should appear in the article, as it's explicitly discussed. If it's not there as an image, we should at least wikilink the file to the text describing it. For consistency, I used File:Turgot_map_of_Paris,_general_map_-_Norman_B._Leventhal_Map_Center.jpg. I'd like to see that added to the set, but I think, to avoid nom derailment, I'll just nominate that to be added to the set after this closes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Visually inaccessible to the reader/viewer. Sca (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as before - great work, and already spawning derivatives that add to a range of articles (e.g. Place Dauphine, Louvre Palace). I'm sure intelligent editors can find a way to feature it on the Main Page - any one of these sheets would be featurable. TSP (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I would like an answer to the question. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I love the image, but I would like to see it as a single file. The 850MB one is a bit large, indeed, but we have a handy tool for that, which I think is preferable to requiring the user to open each segment separately. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recall, we traditionally allow sets in odd cases like this, even when the smaller subsections aren't used. It doesn't come up often, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 09:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rhododendrites: In case it's not clear, the single combined image is part of the nomination, as well as each of the individual sheets. TSP (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • strong support for the single whole map. oppose individual segments. I love the image but I don't like the idea of promoting an image (or 19) that cannot stand on it's own. I.e. I have a hard time conceiving of a set in which each component wouldn't have a shot at being promoted on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 1 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 2 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 3 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 4 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 5 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 6 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 7 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 8 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 9 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 10 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 11 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 12 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 13 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 14 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 15 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 16 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 17 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 18-19 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 20 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 17:43:30 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of secretive and near-threatened Madagascar endemic

Articles in which this image appears

Rufous-headed ground-roller Ground roller

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks very good. You were incredibly productive while in Madagascar; how long were/are you there? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

just over three weeks. Hard work with Madagascar's dreadful roads and everything being done on foot. Nearly every shot requires flash as the few remaining wildlife locations are deep forest. Outside of the National Parks every living thing has been destroyed, so you never see birds perching by the roadside or in fields or grasslands. There aren't any left. Only saved by enthusiastic and helpful guides who are brilliant at finding reptiles and amphibians and carrying camera gear up and down slippery tracks. --Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly sad. Wow. What happened to the country? I mean, it's about the size of Britain, isn't it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread poverty and corruption. MER-C 12:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Do you have anything of this that isn't quite so nuked with camera flash? The steel-eye and plumage doesn't look natural as is (exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C). JJ Harrison (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As your exhibits show, this is an extraordinarily difficult bird to photograph. This is the best shot I could get from three sightings in the forest undergrowth. I retouched the eye. The plumage colours look comparable to images that show up on a Google search. I'm actually pretty pleased with it! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. MER-C 12:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – not significant EV in the first article (article is too weak), but good EV in Ground roller. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as I did at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rufous-headed ground-roller (Atelornis crossleyi).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 18:08:13 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality focus-stacked image of one of the most beautiful frogs in the world. Essential to article

Articles in which this image appears

Mantella baroni, Frog, Mantella

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Works for me, it could almost be paired with an image of it's rather distinct underbelly. Mattximus (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good, encyclopedic image. Few minor things stuck to it, but a bit of leaf or some specks don't really matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 00:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 12:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Variegated golden frog (Mantella baroni) Ranomafana.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 12:08:31 (UTC)

Reason

I love what Frances Benjamin Johnston did with sepia for this. She must have felt so clever, contrasting the white lace with the sepia colours on the dress. Plus, Edith herself was arguably a Civil Rights advocate - at least a fan of Booker T. Washington - and an interesting person. It's slightly cropped in her article with {{CSS image crop}}, which saves on inappropriate crops to the original while fitting it slightly better to a thumbnail.
Lots of scratches and dust; nothing too hard to handle, just a time-consuming careful restoration. I tweaked the levels a bit to bring out the detail.

Articles in which this image appears

Edith Roosevelt; also in a gallery at Frances Benjamin Johnston

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Frances Benjamin Johnston, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Striking image, historically significant. Sca (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sca and Mydreamsparrow: Just as a heads up, I found some more damage, so I've made some tweaks. It should be roughly the same, but the saturation is slightly different, since I keep rethinking.
• Support – Same as on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – great quality and EV. TSP (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 20:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 15:52:25 (UTC)

Reason

I love the work of Philippe Chaperon, and Gallica has loads and loads of his set designs for operas. I love that he incorporates characters into his plans, showing how they'd fit into the stage, and work with it. It's really lovely work that's shamefully neglected.

Articles in which this image appears

Haydée

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Philippe Chaperon, restored by User:Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, I spent some time bulking up the article a bit. It's your typical 18th/early 19th century comedy; there's a dramatic thing in the past, a person who finds out the secret and tries to use it against him, talking in one's sleep, dramatic reveals of who a character really is... the bad get punished, and everyone else gets given positions and titles. Fluff and nonsense, but the kind of thing that's really effective in the moment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a nice image, and I'd probably lean support. @Adam Cuerden: I'm curious about a couple things, though. The middle person in the foreground -- his left arm is not damage? I'm also looking at the topmost sail. How did you distinguish between the spots you removed and did not. For example, near the very top under where the horse's head would be, there are a few removed and a couple that remain? Some similar-tone spots towards the bottom-left of the sail. I'm not sure if they're something to be removed? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are definitely right about the arm. I'll fix that once I'm home. As for the spots - they're a judgement call. They can be part of watercolour naturally if there's bubbles on the brush, or be caused later by minor water damage, e.g. a sneeze. I tend to remove the ones that seem disruptive to the art; I'll have another look, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 23:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having compared things with other signs of damage, I'm getting more convinced about removing some of the specks, and have done so. Check now. @Rhododendrites: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 00:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 12:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 20:00:03 (UTC)

Reason

In a follow-up discussion to the below nom I noticed how few FPs of sculptures there currently are. This photo of Bernini's Apollo and Daphne, a prime example of baroque sculpture and the master sculptor's work, presents the subject well with great technical quality. (Looking at various pictures of the setting, the back-lit window appears to be pretty much unavoidable.) Note that I just replaced the original image in the article with a slightly cropped version.

Articles in which this image appears

Apollo and Daphne (Bernini), Uncropped image is also in Apollo and Daphne, Baroque sculpture, Borghese Collection, Gian Lorenzo Bernini and many others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Architas (Note: I just realised the user is blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think this counts against the image's FP-worthiness, though?)

• Support as nominator – Paul_012 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a beautiful image and an important sculpture. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nae bad at all. Like the lighting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 07:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per Adam. – Sca (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The sockpuppetry concern is not a problem, the operator of the accounts is still in good standing on this wiki as the socks haven't been used to violate policy or stack en.wp FPC. See my comments with my admin hat on here. That said, this image could do a little noise reduction but support otherwise. MER-C 20:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Apollo and Daphne (Bernini) (cropped).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 22:54:33 (UTC)

Reason

EV/quality -- a strange-looking, candy-colored plant I'd never seen before

Articles in which this image appears

Strongylodon macrobotrys, Strongylodon

FP category for this image

Plants/Flowers

Creator

Rhododendrites

• Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 04:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 20:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 07:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose really too noisy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - New version uploaded. I found a couple flecks of CA to removed and applied some selective denoising to the background. I also uploaded a prior version with somewhat less denoising if the present version is too much. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yann, MER-C, Mydreamsparrow, and Charlesjsharp: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 20:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowing this plant, I don't think this image does it justice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jade vine (70200).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 00:43:39 (UTC)

Reason

EV, quality, pretty good shot of an interesting ceiling mosaic in a setting not terribly conducive to photography

Articles in which this image appears

Surrogate's Courthouse, William de Leftwich Dodge

FP category for this image

Artwork/Others

Creator

Rhododendrites

• Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How much of the full mosaic is this? It's a great picture, but it's a bit hard to judge how much of something is enough when you don't know what the full thing is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 04:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adam Cuerden: I'll try to piece it together from other pictures, since I'm having trouble finding any picture of the whole thing. Here you can see one end. The zodiac symbol on the right is what appears in the nominated picture. Then this one (not mine) shows the rest of the way down, starting with the other zodiac symbol depicted in the nominated image (on the left). Taking straight-on shots of the whole area would not be possible, as much of the room is occupied by a security screening station (sitting below much of what's shown in that second picture). All in all I'd say that this is about maybe 1/10th of the total surface area of the mosaic? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Would've liked to see some of the details of the top in it, but at the same time, curved walls? It would be awkward to even try. Support on the whole. It certainly shows a key repeating pattern, and gives a flavour of it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 15:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice detail, but the crop on the bottom is unfortunate (though not substantive, given the difficulty). MER-C 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ceiling mosaic in the Surrogate's Courthouse (32325)a.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 03:35:11 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, very good EV and composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Pomegranate, Pomegranate juice, Iranian cuisine, Juice, Juicing

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

Augustus Binu

• Support as nominator – DreamSparrow ^Chat 03:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 04:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Yann (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 20:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pomegranate Juice (2019).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 08:33:10 (UTC)

Reason

high quality reproduction of work of art

Articles in which this image appears

War elephant, Howdah, Henri-Paul Motte, Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, Portal:Elephants

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War

Creator

Henri-Paul Motte

• Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Interesting, but kinda muddy. Sca (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - [19] - the image this was uploaded over - is a lot clearer; I think this was either over-darkened, or taken from a copy that was over-inked. Also, I hate this kind of destructive crop, where the edges are permanently cut off. Lastly, it's kind of poorly documented. "Scan book" is not a very good description of a source, and kind of raises some doubt about this passing Criterion 7. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 10:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Adam. A better reproduction should be possible. MER-C 16:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 20:43:10 (UTC)

Reason

Did someone ask for more banknotes? This is a more interesting look at the technology behind some of our favorite subjects here at FPC. One can literally see the incisions in the banknote. Was nominated previously (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Banknote portrait pattern (Intaglio print, tactile effect).jpg (file)) where it ended up at 4-0 so putting this up for reconsideration.

Articles in which this image appears

Intaglio (printmaking)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

PetarM

• Support as nominator – MER-C 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 07:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 10:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• That fiber sticking out from the nose still bothers me, so Weak Support... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I would go as far as to replace the lead image with this one. Mattximus (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Banknote portrait pattern (Intaglio print, tactile effect).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 06:26:04 (UTC)

Reason

Saw this mentioned in another disussion. User may be problematic, but he is a good photographer, and we're awfully light on architecture at the moment.

Articles in which this image appears

Santa Maria della Vittoria, Rome

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

LivioAndronico

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 06:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 13:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Impressive architectural spectacle, xcllnt detail. Sca (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now - used only in a gallery but otherwise FP quality. MER-C 17:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MER-C: Point. I've moved it out of the gallery. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. MER-C 17:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome - Interior.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 15:39:08 (UTC)

Reason

When I came across this in a tide pool near Monterey, California, I had no idea what it was. In fact, it is a pyrosome, a colony of little creatures that floats around the ocean, connected by a gelatinous "tunic". Strange things. I think EV is the main thing here -- we have very few pictures of these, and this one depicts its unusual form/texture better than the others, I think. When I nominated this last year, it was closed with 3 supports and 0 opposes. Sending it in one more time to get a clearer result.

Articles in which this image appears

Pyrosoma atlanticum, Pyrosome

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

Rhododendrites

• Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with some slight reservations. It's slightly grainy, and I'd prefer a little more resolution, and it's unfortunate there's no real scale, either in the image or description. But they are rare on here, the photo can hardly be considered bad, and underwater photography is considered one of the most difficult kinds. I can't speak as to accuracy of colours, but it looks about right. So, I think that's a clear support. Nice work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'll have a go at a noise reduction later. I didn't measure at the time, but I would estimate maybe 3.5" long and about .75" wide at the widest point? FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - needs a little noise reduction, but this is not a deal-breaker. MER-C 17:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adam Cuerden and MER-C: FYI I've uploaded another version. Not a substantial change. I did a selective denoise of the background (most of it) and a separate, lesser selective denoise of the subject (about 33% of it). Obviously there's not a vote I'm asking you to change, but would appreciate your thoughts about whether you think it's an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel it's a net improvement. Any chance of doing the same to the jade vine image? MER-C 11:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MER-C:  Done see comment at that FPC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 10:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pyrosoma atlanticum (12256).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 17:24:49 (UTC)

Reason

Thought I might troll some FPs from Commons, get a bit of variety injected in here. We're low on architecture at the moment, so how about a gorgeous shot of a Canadian landmark?

Articles in which this image appears

Craigdarroch Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Michal Klajban

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 17:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Has perspective been corrected correctly? The stairs and the verandah are not horizontal. MER-C 19:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MER-C: Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Craigdarroch Castle just after sunset - view from the west, Victoria, Canada.jpg says it was; I could probably get the photographer here to answer for himself. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 19:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building is quite crooked and as soon as something is straight, something else is not. Anyway, you're right that the stairs should be horizontal so I've fixed that. Regards, Podzemnik (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. Support. MER-C 11:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an incorrect correction would be too much, even for FPC. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Such a nice picture and has excellent EV, stairs and veranda appear horizontal to me. Mattximus (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Intriguing faux historic architecture, nice lighting. Sca (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, again per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice lighting. Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Craigdarroch Castle just after sunset - view from the west, Victoria, Canada.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 18:01:29 (UTC)

Reason

The next entry in my text file of potential FPs is this portrait recently featured on Commons. Originally a self-promo upload, but that is unfortunately not an issue any more.

Articles in which this image appears

Martha Érika Alonso

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Martha Erika Alonso de Moreno Valle (likely a work for hire, Commons FPC didn't find this to be a problem)

• Support as nominator – MER-C 18:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : Top is a bit tightly cropped IMO, still classic portrait -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A good portrait, and the only one we have of this person whose article is getting a lot of attention. The license issue... oof. Hard one. When someone uses their name as a username and uploads an official picture, we would typically need to ask them to go through OTRS. That didn't happen, and now, of course, it's not possible. If I could find and easily point to an instance of it being published prior to the upload, that would probably be a dealbreaker, but I don't see any such publication at this point. Ah well. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems OK to promote a publicity shot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 18:46:54 (UTC)

Reason

Clear, beautiful picture of one of the shuttle buses which were the central issue in the protests.

Articles in which this image appears

Google bus protests, Googleplex

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Grendelkhan

• Support as nominator – grendel|khan 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the biggest question is whether the 2018 bus is substantially the same as the ones the protests were over, given the article describes a process of regulation and requirements for them that happened in response to the protests. My vote would depend on that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 19:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, the bus fleets themselves didn't change significantly, only the rules they followed in arranging their stops in the city. The image, to me, reflects Rebecca Solnit's description: The luxury coach passengers ride for free and many take out their laptops and begin their work day on board; there is of course wifi. Most of them are gleaming white, with dark-tinted windows, like limousines, and some days I think of them as the spaceships on which our alien overlords have landed to rule over us. grendel|khan 20:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think a picture of a bus is the best picture of a protest, even if the protest is about buses. Mattximus (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - lacks context. Like Mattximus, I'm not seeing how this bus is connected with Google or a protest. Do you know what make of bus this is? This image would illustrate that quite effectively. MER-C 11:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus and MER-C: What do you think of its use in Googleplex? I think I'll at least Weak support on the basis of that usage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – A bus and a building, with no one doing anything, do not constitute EV. Yawn. Sca (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – It perhaps has EV. But that alone doesn't make it an FP, and this is just too static. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 22:32:27 (UTC)

Reason

Very high resolution capture of the most common needle file shapes of a major brand; in use in several articles. The black background version is FP at Commons, this transparent background version makes it the most versatile to use.

Articles in which this image appears

File (tool), Hand tool, de:Feile, pl:Pilnik

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Lucas

• Support PNG (oppose JPG) Lucas (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PNG – Bammesk (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JPG — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated after ping. There are indeed advantages to JPG that are specific to its display on this project. On Commons I would want the highest resolution regardless of the thumbnail or how MediaWiki renders it. Ultimately, however, if we wanted the highest possibly quality I would figure on something like a TIFF file rather than PNG. The transparency makes it versatile, but I can't think of when we would need it for an image like this on enwiki. To be clear, I'm not not opposing the PNG, but I do oppose promoting both (as opposed to one or the other) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rhododendrites: about "when we need a transparency": specifically for this image, we can match the background of its thumbnail in the article to other images in the vicinity. Also Wikipedia is PD, our images can be used anywhere, outside Wikipedia. Bammesk (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a tough question. After consideration I came to the conclusion that, because image quality is only so important on enwiki FPC. It's important, but we aren't looking at images in a vacuum, assessing strictly by image quality (the argument about promoting a higher quality file for the sake of reuse is more relevant to Commons FPC, I think). Here we're looking at images in the context of use in Wikipedia articles. That is why, for better or worse, we cannot promote an image we find to be higher quality if consensus at the article is that it shouldn't be used. The most important thing is value to one or more articles, not quality/usability in its own right. That's the impression I've gotten from FPC anyway. That's why I think it's sensible to factor in MediaWiki constraints that affect the way people actually see the images. Because in-article context is an essential consideration on enwiki FPC. As I said, on Commons I would likely lean the other way, because the only thing that matters is the quality. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Due to PNG thumbnails coming out blurry, should this be a JPEG? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adam Cuerden, blurry thumbnails are not my fault, and the png format has the advantage of a transparent background, which was part of my processing of this image. – Lucas 19:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The details are too minute in this case, I don't see much difference between the Alt and the Original at 700 pixels wide above. I am inclined to go with the Original as nominated by image creator. Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bammesk: You can't tell on the handles? It's glaringly different to me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 08:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is sharper, and I agree with your general point. In this composition, with six somewhat monotonic monochromatic files, the extra sharpness doesn't have much of a punch or overall effect. It would be different if the subject was a landscape or a portrait. But I am not too attached and would support Alt if consensus goes in that direction. (struck, commented below) Bammesk (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Third file from top looks uncut (not serrated)! Is this the back side of a "safe edge" file? Needs explanation in caption, after that I can support. --Janke | Talk 15:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Janke  Done I explained it in the description and in the image note of that file (see Commons page). – Lucas (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third file is identified in image caption as "barrette", which is listed or defined in the article (slightly above the image) as having one cut-side with all other sides being safe. That, plus Lucas' addition above, should be sufficient, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as it is now explained. --Janke | Talk 08:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. MER-C 10:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose PNG, Support JPEG I just don't think Wikipedia's software handles PNGs well enough to make them viable, and years of me attempting to get it fixed have failed. Compare how the company name is clearly visible on the JPEG, and not at all on the PNG, for instance, and likewise the texture of the file itself, particularly on the second and fourth. It's just a lower-quality thumbnail that isn't appropriate for FP unless someone actually fixes it. Which no-one is willing to do. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 11:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adam Cuerden what gets featured is the image file itself, which doesn't have any problems. Also the PNG version has much more value because of the cut out background and lossless compression. So in your opinion no more PNG files can get featured, no matter what, just because of display issues in thumbnail generation which the creators are not to blame for? Please reconsider. I understand thumbnails are important but anyone remotely interested in the image will examine the file itself anyway and not stop altogether at a slightly blurry thumbnail. – Lucas 17:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially since thumbnails in articles usually are only 200 or 300 px wide. If you want to see detail, you have to click to the image page. In full size, I see no discernible difference except for the shade of the background. --Janke | Talk 19:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lucasbosch and Janke: I see two problems with this: Firstly, sure, we may turn Media Viewer off, but it's a default, and the image won't look the same until you get to the full resolution version, which requires going through Media Viewer to the File description page, THEN downloading the full-size version. Secondly, having put thumbnail versions side by side (see above) I'd say the JPEG was noticably a little better, particularly the second, third and fourth, which show a little more shape and detail, and a lot more of the original's variations in tone. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Lucasbosch, Bammesk, Rhododendrites, Janke, and MER-C: It would be nice if everyone would clarify whether they support the png or jpeg version (or both). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – about the process: It makes no sense to have an Alt voted on if the nominator who created the nom opposes the Alt, and more specifically when the nominator rejects the idea of the Alt before it is even introduced, as is the case here [20]. After all, a nom is a nominator's nomination, it is not everyone's nomination. I think the JPEG should go through a separate nom process, the PNG should be the only image voted on, and the votes for and against the JPEG should be discounted. Sidenote: I have been a participant in the FPC project for a while and have never seen this, and even if it has happened in the past, that doesn't justify it. Bammesk (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about this more and struck my comment above. Reason: the choice is between two different versions of the same image, they can't both be FP, it's an either/or situation. The simplest, practical, fair way to prevent voting confusion, such as preventing the possibility of both images becoming FP, would be to evaluate and vote on both images at the same time, in the same nom. Bammesk (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It think there are severe functional issues with PNGs on Wikipedia, and they're not going to be fixed by ignoring them. I would like it, very much, if we could get the bug fixed. I've been told it's quite doable, but the coders for some reason think that having PNGs blurry is a feature to be actively maintained. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 20:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam, about PNGs, if you want to prevent PNGs becoming FPs, propose amending the FP criteria here or here, because currently PNGs are as eligible as JPEGs, TIFFs and SVGs. By the way SVGs don't render well in all platforms, and JPEGs are lossy and cannot handle transparencies, so there is no one format fits all. The transparency feature is a plus for inanimate objects, diagrams, etc., such as this nom. Bammesk (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) ....Sidenote: I touched up some obvious typos in your reply above.[reply]

@Bammesk:

• https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T39960
• https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192744

Basically, our terrible rendering of PNG thumbnails comes down to a ten-year-old choice meant to help with edge-case diagrams that might look a bit bad sharpened, instead of, say, just generating a thumbnail manually for a tiny edge case. Until we decide to support all files, instead of an edge case, it's only suitable for the edge case that it was arbitrarily assigned to. I think this is a ridiculous situation, but I've been trying to change it for years. What have you done? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 11:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have to do anything about MediaWiki code. Contributions are voluntary, not obligations. With the criteria as is, there will be disagreement about when and where PNG or JPEG is best. You can propose amending the criteria though, to limit PNG noms (to say software-generated images), if you think that's worthwhile. By the way, I don't equate (or correlate) Media Viewer with thumbnail and in-article use. I correlate Media Viewer with viewing the image in its file page (with less text). Bammesk (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 02:55:43 (UTC)

Reason

For 1828, this is quite good; it's not quite at the level that this sort of mass art would reach 50 years later, but it also documents the original production.

Articles in which this image appears

Le comte Ory, Gioachino Rossini

FP category for this image

WP:FP/THEATRE

Creator

Dubois & chez Martinet, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 02:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MER-C 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Le comte Ory - Dubois & chez Martinet - Final scene.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 21:10:53 (UTC)

Reason

Clear visualization of a certain mathematical knot. Some may prefer a version with a transparent background but I find the black on white visually appealing.

Articles in which this image appears

Topology, Low-dimensional topology, Geometry, Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics

Creator

Ylebru

• Support as nominator – Rab V (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – per FP criteria "images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height". Bammesk (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - For a computer-generated image like this, more information about how it was generated, plus source code if possible, should be included. (If it were, it would be trivial to upload a higher-resolution version.) grendel|khan 08:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - in addition to the above, the image is conspicuously absent from trefoil knot. The images in that article suggest that thinner "ropes" would be better. Should be SVG. MER-C 10:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absence from Knot (mathematics) is also odd. I'm not so sure about the thinner ropes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 22:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - would support if resolution is increased and amount of whitespace (blackspace?) is reduced. The three highlights are also rather distracting. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]