Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2016 at 23:02:13 (UTC)
Reason
High image quality, captures the size of humans relative to the massive flow rate of water on the pad, rare test, image is well composed. It has a free use license, per NASA policy.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2016 at 03:54:55 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, good restoration (I uploaded several of the partially done restorations so people can see just how much gunk was on this picture). Image of Indriati Iskak at the peak of her acting career, before she married, went to university, and then started working for Unilever.
Comment It looks very good, but could you fix the light patches on her right (viewer left) arm, the two spots on her left (viewer right) hand, and the shadows on her skirt, leg, and shoes, which still show signs of damage, and maybe another quick pass over the left half of the background, and upload the original scan explicitly? Excellent image, but just a tiny bit more work could lift this up to incredible. Adam Cuerden(talk)15:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2016 at 22:21:51 (UTC)
Reason
It is an attractive and unique visualisation of a landmark at the first Wikimania away from a city, and taken at the recently concluded Wikimania 2016.
Oppose – the original image [1] has stitching misalignments that carry to the "Tiny planet" projection. Great composition though. On the original see (x,y) = (4220,2050), (4220,2810), (7065,1825), (7320,1825), (7470,2400), (8970,1845) all relative to top left corner of the image. Bammesk (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the creative way to play with the wide angle photo and make the small town as a symbol of the warming gathering of the global wikimedia movement. --Liang (WMTW) (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - effectively combines several themes in addtion to Tiny World/Stereography, the Cenotaph of the Major/First World War War Memorial, the Last Supper/Da Vinci , Wikimania 2016, Esino Lario, the 12 Stations of the Cross, the Via Crucius and Michele Vedani. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Aside from the technical issues I don't see what this picture adds to the EV that isn't already covered by the other FP tiny plant. Spongie555 (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great concept, great composition, and topic ties in with a Wikimedia event. I disagree with above that the sky is too noisy, but the stitching error of the lamp-post is a valid concern. Deryck C.17:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Thank you, everyone, for your support and critiques. I'm afraid I wasn't able to fix the stitching errors due to handheld capture, so I hereby withdraw my nomination. – cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with possibility for replacement if a higher quality video is found. The title card is necessary; I'd much rather have this version. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some capitalization issues, it seems: the word envelope in "Nuclear Envelope", "cytokinesis" in the brown label and "chromosomes" in "Metaphase II Chromosomes" all should be decapitalized. Brandmeistertalk20:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is also "envelopebreaks" two words, "oppisite" misspelled, "divides" singular (under Anaphase II), "(Fragments)" doesn't need capitalization if used as a descriptor rather than a noun. Bammesk (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Beautifully done, but still needs some work. Apart from the above mentioned,
I think the "microtubule" label should be dropped. Since microtubules are the constituent structures of the spindle, labelling both seems redundant and confusing when provided without explanatory text.
Could the shading be adjusted to make the attached sister chromatids more distinguishable?
The crossing-over isn't very clear. Take a look at the bottom tetrad in prophase I. I can't quite tell which arm is attached to which. Also, in metaphase I, the crossed-over arms appear unequal.
The aster shouldn't be shown as sun rays; they should have the same appearance as the spindle microtubules (but shorter).
The "Homologous chromosomes" label in prophase I should probably point to each of the pairs, the way "Sister chromatids" does in anaphase I.
Typo in the anaphase I description: should be "chromosomes", not "chrmosomes".
The description could also be clearer. How about "separate and move" instead of just "move"?
Probably not necessary to show the nuclear envelope forming in telophase I only to disintegrate again right away (though the illustration in Campbell's does)?
Don't think we should say the spindle forms "around" the chromosomes (prophase I). Just forms is probably enough, or if necessary, "in each daughter cell".
"Metaphase II" probably shouldn't be repeated in the description text.
Minor issue, but I wonder if the central dark area in the shading of the cells is necessary. It makes the cell look like a target, and it seems to emphasise something that isn't there.
It would also be nice to have an image of the late interphase at the beginning, to help the viewer get a picture of the "normal" stage before division, but that's just my opinion.
Since microtubule and spindle are not same, I thought using both of them would be better. The file is SVG so you can it can be zoomed without using quality, so by zooming, you can distinguish minor things like attached sister chromatids. The same fact is true for crossing over part. Although the asters don't used exact same color as spindle but I used orange yellow colors for both of them. I used yellow at the center because of the centriole pair. All misspellings are corrected. Homologous chromosomes label in prophase now point to each of the pairs. The diagram clearly shows that chromatids seperate during Anaphase II so I just used "move" to make text as short as it could be. The central dark area in the shading of the cells is because of the gradient that was given to make the cell more spherically and better. Interphase stage is not necessary to be shown at the beginning because meiosis contain several important stages and adding that stage would make the diagram longer and also Interphase is already depicted in mitosis diagram . Ali Zifan19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2016 at 23:21:45 (UTC)
Reason
She launched the Second Wave of Feminism, which is rather an acomplishment; also the photo's pretty good and has a lot of characer. Might want her facing the other way, but beggars can't be choosers, as they say.
Weak oppose - We absolutely should have a featured picture of Friedan - heck, I've cited her in RL numerous times. I'm afraid this just isn't it, however. Her looking away from the camera just takes too much away from the image for me, as does the tension between her forward-facing body and side-facing head. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you may have more than you realize here with this photo. If I am reading our article on United States Navy Admirals correctly, this was probably one of the first nine United States Navy officers promoted to the rank of admiral in US history. If the other images are of equal quality, then perhaps an image set for FP promotion should be considered. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2016 at 19:18:18 (UTC)
Reason
It's a really impressively detailed image; Harris & Ewing would later become the largest photographic studio in the United States, and with pictures like this, it's not hard to see why. #10wikicommonsdays Day 3
It is on the original too [2] (scanned from a negative [3]). Is the original burned to enhance lighting/contrast, or is it a lens effect, or ...? It is uncanny, although I do Support as is, given photo's age and EV (and the hat of course). Bammesk (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried searching Tempo's archive; no luck. Kompas may have something, but their archive is offline, and the office is closed for Eid until at least next week. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ↓ – Good capture of an interesting artist, with good detail for 1947. (Taken on 120 film?) Wish that mirror wasn't in the background, but oh well.... Sca (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Adam, how 'bout a top crop that would at least get rid of the guy in the background and the distracting light fixture? Sca (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: I didn't want to crop too much, so try this. Tried to just crop out the minimum to avoid distraction at the top, but then a little on the right needed to go. Then it felt too tight, so it went back in. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support either – slightly prefer original, it shows more of the room. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC) on the Alt. 1 there is a speck at (x,y)=(1010,200) pixels relative to top left corner, and a very fine line from (104,0) to (70,1180)[reply]
Oppose as the colour filter details don't appear to be explained. It has no audio, so it needs captions explaining them, and they're neither on the file description page nor in articles. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's not explained where it's used, nor on the file description page (and given the file description page is relatively hard to get to from a video as Wikipedia's currently set up, it needs to be both). At the moment, if one sees this in an article, they need to watch it, find the somewhat-hidden button to get to the file description, then from there go to the source page. And that's presuming NASA doesn't rearrange their site. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2016 at 23:58:57 (UTC)
Reason
Highly notable person, nice shot of her in action, as it were. Restored this mainly at 400%. Added a little headroom; it's kinda just at the requirement, but the film grain indicates that not much, if any, detail is lost because of that.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 06:19:34 (UTC)
Reason
Impressive picture of the largest single naval formation in history to take part in a battle. There are 11 carriers and 3 battleships, plus some other smaller ships doing a concerted maneuver shortly after Japan's surrender. Not gonna happen again. I think the imperfections are excusable considering the composition and subject matter.
Oppose for now. In clear need of restoration, white border jutting in at the top left corner. Crop is awfully tight (though this can't be helped much) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – No doubt TF 38 was an impressive formation, but this aerial shot lacks detail and focus, the horizon appears to be tilted – and the war was over when it was taken, so it's not a war-action photo. Sca (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2016 at 20:39:00 (UTC)
Reason
A very nice photo - a little luminous, but that's a 1910s photographic convention, I think - either you dump the people deep into shadow, or you make them glow. One of the two. #10wikicommonsdays Day 7
@Crisco 1492: I'm not sure the focus is that bad; it's a very big scan. Consider this scaled down version - it's still well above the minimum requirements, but everything in the image looks sharp. Perfect focus distance, as would be seen at poster-size, probably was beyond 1910s camera technology, even if this is an incredible image overall. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her hand is still out of focus, even scaled down. That's my main problem: her experiment (if that's what it is) is out of focus, and yet it's one of the most important parts of the photograph. The test tubes on the table are pin sharp, and though her face is a bit soft at this resolution I don't mind too much. It's the hand that gives me pause. (If this were a more modern picture, I'd have opposed). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has great EV as a representation of the painting itself (which has an article). For an image of Durer, I agree that the Munchen self portrait is better. Unfortunately, the only high resolution version of that painting we have is somewhat noisy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since such large files tend to slow my computer down, I reviewed this at a 3000px wide downsample, and would be happy to promote that, so the full-size passes for me. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Appears to be a good scan by the Prado. Multiple uses on WP. But Charles IV seems a rather enigmatic and not particularly notable historical figure. Sca (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support either – I kind of prefer the first image, the one with the vignetting, not because of the vignetting perse but for two different reasons: 1) I think with the vignetting, the eye is drawn more to her face and expression, and 2) for color balance. The black at the edges, especially the upper edges, picks up the black in her dress (that appears beneath her sweater). Without the vignetting, the background is nearly the same color as her outfit. However, I'm no expert in photography, so I defer to the image experts here. – Corinne (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 04:34:38 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image, especially considering it is from 1965. Historic photo of Gene Kranz working as flight director in flight control in his signature vest. Free license as it is from NASA. This is one of the most historic photos from NASA's mission control.
Comment - My only issue is that this isn't his signature vest - the article notes that his signature was a white vest, but the article has no photos of him wearing one, and two (including this) of him in dark vests. TSP (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. He wore the black vests during training sessions. His wife made him different vests for different occasions, and sometimes special ones for unique events. I think the vest itself is the important bit, I can change up my wording. Kees08 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it's because she is looking one way while her body and head are turned another way. That and the fact that she may be squinting (can't find any other images of her for me to compare with). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 01:47:57 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image of the actress during the early period of her career. Was used on the cover of the 29 April 1959 edition of Varia. We also have an image of this session, which is interesting.
Support Though you may want to tweak the presentation a bit. The differing heights are awkward, and the front and back views, presumably to stop him shooting at himself, are reversed. A vertical presentation would be more natural, most likely. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with Chris' comments that it would be better if these images were a bit more alike, but they were well executed and have strong EV. I'm a bit mystified by Sca's comment: soldiers are required to wear standard uniforms and use standard sets of equipment equipment, and images clearly showing the full kit of a combat soldier have significant historic value. The Australian War Memorial, for instance, goes out of its way to ensure that it has photos and examples of full combat gear in its collection and these are predominantly displayed in a museum which is visited by hundreds of thousands of people per year. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We all know soldiers are required to wear uniforms. The point is, these are public-relations photos, not any sort of real-world event. Sca (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you can identify every piece of kit worn by a British soldier in the 2010s without even looking at a photograph? Good on you! But for the rest of us, these posed shots show the uniform much better than a shot of a soldier (say) caught in a firefight.Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I find them boring. I don't think most readers are interested in every piece of kit worn by British soldiers in the 2010s. Nor do most of us expect to be required to identify them anytime soon. Sca (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find several subjects presented in these fora to be boring, but nonetheless I am able to push my own biases aside to recognize the value of various contributions. Wikipedia and its processes are bigger than any one editor, and as such we are supposed to focus on content quality in featured processes, rather than some abstract ideal of 'not boring to me'. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 00:38:31 (UTC)
Reason
Somewhat grainy, but that's fairly excusable - photography around 1900 is prone to that. Still, this IS a good image. The pose is very natural, and there's a reasonable amount of detail; her face is well represented. Plus the photographer is notable. Colour is reasonably accurate - the TIFF has colour bars, though I did darken up the blacks a little, to correct for fading.
@Rainbow Archer: I'm not sure you quite get hat's possible and impossible. The scratches and such have been fixed on this image, and the contrast upped. There's not much more that can be done; the remaining problems are graininess. Going back to the original negatives might help a bit, but Adolph de Meyer's original negatives are almost entirely lost, so that's probably not possible. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are other problems also. As she is wearing hat, the shadow is covering her face's upper part. Her forehead is not visible and she is the subject here. Rainbow Archer (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While true, clothing does tell us something about her - her dramatic taste in clothing contrasts nicely with her calm facial expression. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 04:46:23 (UTC)
Reason
For most aircraft in service with their parent nation it is customary for the unit to denote the number of kills that the aircraft and pilot have racked up over the course of the plane's career. Here, the nose of an A-10A Thunderbolt II close air support aircraft shows off the stars painted on the aircraft to denote the number of Iraqi trucks, artillery pieces, tanks, armored vehicles and radar sites destroyed by the aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War.
Oppose I don't see any EV. It's not a good depiction of the A-10A Thunderbolt, and there is no mention of "kill counts" in the article, and there is no specific article for it. Interesting pic, but I'm not seeing how it links to the encyclopedia. Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Right side of her head (left side of pic) is rather badly shadowed.
Understand re fast film & athletics, but this print is awfully grainy. Looks like it was taken on ASA 1000 film – too bad photog didn't switch to Tri-X for this shot. Sca (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: If you'll look at the original, you'll see I've brought up the shadows a bit. You'll note her hair is at least somewhat distinct from the background here; that isn't true of the original. I'm not sure how much more I can do about the dark part of the photo. I think it's definitely an improvement, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)15:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbow Archer: I know. A good portion of my work on this was bringing it away from the background as much as possible without being misleading. I think I've done as much as I could in that line. If you didn't know, I always upload the originals. This is the pre-restoration image. I think you'll agree I've pulled out a lot of shadow detail. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect technically, but the excellent composition and strong EV of the moment the photo captures more than makes up for this. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ MITB: Please familiarize yourself with the FP criteria before nominating ineligible pictures (e.g. too small), thanks! --Janke | Talk08:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest closure None of the images here meet the featured picture criteria, and it appears that the nomination is something of a fishing expedition. MITB, it would be good to have a FP of Churchill (or more if we already have some), but please take the time to consider the criteria and the quality of the image. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 23:15:17 (UTC)
Reason
A bit stylised, and black-and-white as an artistic choice, but the choices work well. I've levels adjusted this a little bit since it did seem a bit too dark and shadowed, but it's otherwise untweaked
Comment Great pose. Damn shame the photographer focused on her neck rather than her face (facial features are unsharp, necklace is sharp). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any photographer does it by missing the focus (it makes the image look odd / out of focus). It is done by putting a filter in front of the lens, or using a special purpose lens, or these days in software. Bammesk (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good EV. Striking resemblance to her father, esp. around the eyes. Agree re focus, but overall detail is acceptable. Sca (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, I absolutely love politicians, all of them! – as long as they're not trying to slip official pics of themselves into the media as clandestine political advertising. Sca (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – out of focus, not FP quality for a 2011 photograph. The camera-composition-lighting show this is a professional studio photo. The focus is on the far side of her head and farther back, not her face. I would be sympathetic if it was a historic photo or an action shot, but it is neither. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think pictures of people at their job add a lot of value that cropping tends to remove. If we crop it to her, it would tend to de-emphasise that she was a NASA mathematician. Adam Cuerden(talk)11:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]