Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 02 Jan 2022 at 01:11:10 (UTC)
Reason
Quality lead image of a rare rock formation. It has been observed in two locations: Canada and Mozambique. This is a CSS image crop. I will upload a balanced crop as shown here, if/when this nomination passes. Will also cleanup the dark surface below the rock.
Yes, Janke, it is possible. As I try to photograph rare nocturnal species that live in a few isolated tropical cloud forests above 1000m, I know I must do better. Any advice would be welcome. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo doesn't seem to represent the subject well. It looks as if the grass in the foreground is the subject of the image, not the building in the background. GrantHenninger (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2022 at 02:36:13 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of NASA's InSight Mars lander during one of its production tests in 2015. Somewhat of a rare view, well captured, enhances several articles. InSight is currently operating on Mars.
Support High quality photo, with strong EV - this provides a hint into the painstaking work that goes into preparing landers for Mars. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The actual mapping is ok, if bland. But the graphics and text are clumsily placed. It doesn't strike me as an outstanding example of mapmaking. ProfDEH (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is probably one of the better photos of Leptogorgia sarmentosa, since the article is rated Start-class and Low-importance, and many of the images that appear when searching 'Leptogorgia sarmentosa' on Wikimedia Commons have technical issues, such as low definition, graininess, lack of sharpness, etc. - 61.69.172.53 (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2022 at 22:55:38 (UTC)
Reason
High quality and energetic picture of a musician at work. I particularly like it because it conveys her intensity and concentration. It also works as an example of "guitar face" without the player looking silly. Good images of musicians performing live are not easy to come by.
Support I think it's full of character, and probably just about justified being sufficiently distinct from the other Lovebites images, but the case would be vastly improved if she had her own article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs21:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would prefer a photo that doesn't look like something left by a horse - even the name suggests something in that direction... ;-) --Janke | Talk08:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will say that the criterion states that the picture is required to be either "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article", or "illustrating article content particularly well". Remember, the essence of a picture, at least in the utility of Wikipedia, is the profound portrayal of the article's subject, making it a valuable gem that paints the walls of the Parthenon of what is known as 'the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit.' There is more to the picture than what meets the eye surface-level, Janke, as the context of the article page and the relevance of the picture's content heavily determines its value. If I had a vote, I would support this picture. 61.69.172.53 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's well photographed, and EV has to win out over the ugliness of what's being photographed, otherwise we put too much off the table. 21:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
Tentative Oppose – Black background is distracting and looks like photoshop rather than photographed on a black background. Silhouettes are tenting to be lost against the background, shells look too dark. ProfDEH (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mistake to disqualify half of the encyclopedic photos in the Molluscs category just because of the background. For inanimate specimen (particularly a multi-view collage), a flat background (photoshopped or not) is fine, if done well. @ProfDEH: what does "tenting to be lost" mean?! Is it a typo? Bammesk (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Typo obvs. The image is clear enough if you zoom right in but I do think it's unsubtle, looks crude at normal scale. EV no doubt but I don't think it's a good image. ProfDEH (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think I see ProfDEH's point, though. This seems a bit harsher than most of the black background molluscs, but it's also incredibly encyclopædic. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs08:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I usually support Hubble images, but somehow the unbalanced framing of this one puts me off - it is badly cut-off at the left. --Janke | Talk09:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – very high resolution, aesthetics don't matter much in documentary photos. It shows pretty much the whole thing, the cut-off region is small. Bammesk (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I eyeballed it earlier to the infobox image. I now checked by laying the two images on top of each other (scaling and rotating). I figure if the nom image was 15% wider (on left) and 15% taller (5% on top and 10% on bottom), then it would pretty much cover the gaseous area of the infobox image. I can't disagree with your comments. About gallery use in the primary article, I had seen it and thought of moving it. I have now moved it up and added "high resolution" to the caption. Article editors will decide! Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some lovely feather detail. This seems to be one of FPC's slow weeks, so I hope it passes. I'd sit on it and renominate if it doesn't. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs08:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I do generally prefer, where the image is meant to illustrate a single, notable aspect of the subject of the article that the images go directly next to the text they're connected to, but at the same time, I get that if the female cones are described in the last paragraph of a section, there's layout reasons for why not to do that. Image is great, article use is... fine. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs08:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2022 at 03:17:33 (UTC)
Reason
Joseph Fourier, a very prominent mathematician. Orphaned at the age of nine in 1770s, his work is used today on anything that has to do with motion, vibration, impact, etc. (examples: quantum physics, ocean waves, spaceships, digital signals, radio waves, car brakes, engines). His work significantly advanced physics, engineering and mathematics. For details see [7][8][9]. The image needs a bit of restoration which I will do if this nomination gets a couple of supports.
I'm always a tiny bit dubious when colour is on an engraving, because a modern colonisation is by necessity speculative and might add copyright - but, at the same time, people did colour in engravings - I have several examples which all predate technology for coloured plates - and I'm not seeing any thing that makes it unbelievable as historic colouring: it's good, but not excessively good. Would've been nice to have an obvious flaw in the colour to fully assure me, but I compared it to some other examples, and... I can buy it. Plus, this is pretty minimal, so even if it is modern, it probably wouldn't rise to the level of copyrightable: flat face colour (the engraving provides highlights and shadows) and a tiny bit of lip colour. As for levels and balance, the white of the page is very white, but that's fine, I think. Support. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs20:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't really look like the painting, bust and grave on his page? Artistic license? Was he fatter when this engraving was made? --Janke | Talk19:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not generally a fan of 19th-century engravings as portraits in our articles, because a lot of the time they were not drawn from life and there is no reason to believe they are anything close to the actual appearance of the subject (see Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures). This one is an exception, in that we know Boilly did draw Fourier from life. It has plenty of EV as the correct choice of lead image for an important topic, and the quality is good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems likely. Barring strong other information, I'd go with the name on the engraving. You do occassionally get some weird chains of art in engravings - close copies of other people's work - and it's possible the artist's singer is a work by his father, but nonetheless, there's literally no evidence for that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs12:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2022 at 20:52:48 (UTC)
Reason
Photo of supersonic shock waves of a full-scale aircraft in flight. This type of photography is a recent innovation (around 2010 to 2015), although the technique is old (Schlieren photography). The purpose of such photos is to aid design quieter supersonic aircraft. For details see [11], file description [12], and this source [13].
Support Not a great image quality-wise, but a great illustration of the technology. And one has to make allowances when you're trying to show the image output of a specific thing. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs00:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2022 at 22:13:09 (UTC)
Reason
A nice example of Rose O'Neill's early work for Puck, with additional value in the history section of Santa Claus. Nicely drawn, racially diverse without, as far as I can tell, falling into any stereotypes - O'Neill was noted for her progressive views on race and feminism, so I shouldn't imagine any ill intent - and just a pleasant image.
Oppose - Contrary to a previous undersea creature, I assume what looks like appendages (cut off at top, to boot) are not part of the creature - thus the image is misleading. --Janke | Talk12:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Hey, Charles! Good To see you're still around. I'm not quite following why the lead image of the species article lacks EV. Is it an angle thing, where it's not showing key anatomy? I don't want to vote without understanding your objection. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The first sentence on top of WP:FPC page says: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." Given it is written as an "either/or", I think exceptional wow factor makes up for weak EV. Bammesk (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hell, you could Probably argue for putting a crop of this in Compound eye as it's beautifully sharp on the eye, and probably less visually confused than the bee eye picture there. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs16:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image size is probably the biggest obstacle here. It's certainly the best image in the article (at least for adults - I didn't really check the juvenile images); at the same time, I kind of have to evaluate it based on a very high standard you've set. At the same time again, though, an endangered species that spends a lot of time in the air or in high places is, at least theoretically, a difficult photo to get. Can you tell me about how you got this photo? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs15:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coouldn't get too close, so had to do quite a crop to get the 'portrait' that I wanted. These days it takes seconds to enlarge using Gigapixel or another software solution, so number of pixels does not have to be a limitation. As a matter of interest, I think this is a difficult bird to get this well situated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2022 at 21:27:08 (UTC)
Reason
While I'm slightly tempted to clone in a little head space, this is a very strong image of a notable musician. Stumbled on it today and thought it deserved to be here. I will note that a quick Google search for the username makes it clear this is probably Castillo's promoter or something in that line uploading the files, but I can't see much wrong with dropping your publicity photos on Wikipedia.
Comment – Maybe it's just me being subjective, but there's something about the colors, or maybe the definition, that seems to make the image look sort of unreal or manipulated. (Please, no quips about 'people of color.') -- Sca (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I like the composition but there are too many mistakes in the edited background adjacent to his trombone (visible at full size). Bammesk (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]