Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 05:13:22 (UTC)
Reason
This image has a very high encyclopedic value in illustrating the best known quote from Hitler's speeches. I've restored it as best I can, starting with this.
Comment. I don't know about others here, but I'm uncomfortable directly reproducing Nazi anti-Jew propaganda here and then calling it encyclopedic because it illustrates Nazi thought. In what meaningful way is that distinguishable from reproducing Nazi anti-Jew propaganda for the sake of promulgating Nazi anti-Jew propaganda? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say straight out that I appreciate Buidhe's work, and don't think that they have any negative intent in doing this other than educating about World War II. I need to say that now, because I'm going to be talking about problems I have with this image, and I don't want them being applied to Buidhe.
We've had Nazi propoganda before, but those have been illustrations. Something like File:Bolschewismus_ohne_Maske2.jpg is visual. It serves a purpose that can't be simply portrayed in words. But the one currently being presented is text from Hitler, in an attractive font **with no illustrations other than a swastika**
So, does this have encyclopedic value? Very little. It's hard to see how it adds much more than quoting the text itself would do.
In the featured article W. S. Gilbert, some key quotes are put off to one side using blue boxes. Presuming this is worth a pullquote, does the artistic portrayal of it, with good font choices and such add to its value, or is it more likely that spreading this via the main page would give anti-Semites something to hang on their walls, without adding to the discussion.
Again, I don't for a moment think this is Buidhe's intent, but we need to balance educational value, artistry, and possible harms. If our Psalm 23 featured picture doesn't add much to Psalm 23 other than looking pretty, the lack of EV is mitigated by artistry, and, given the lack of any real harm, that's really not much of a problem at all (We'll ignore some other EV that image has for now). If people want to print it out and put it on their walls, y'know what, go ahead. Knock yourself out. But if our illustration of a Hitler's prophecy quote doesn't do much more than look pretty... Artistry just isn't enough to balance the possible harms. We need educational value for that, that's unique to the image, not the quote. And if people print it out and put it on their walls, that's... probably not something we want to encourage. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs06:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly respect that point of view. I did write an entire article which puts it in appropriate context, and am trying to get it to FA. I think that the image does have a high encyclopedic value in showing how Hitler's words were valorized and venerated, exactly as if they were scripture! Today's politicians at least in my country do not do this at all. I thought it would be nice to have a featured picture to go with the article but if not, so be it. (t · c) buidhe06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got hit by an edit conflict while expanding my point above, but... I definitely appreciate your work on that. And if it were a more notable publication, or a widely-distributed poster, or something like that, I think the encyclopedic value could push above any "making it more attractive in appearance" issues. A Neo-Nazi could print our other examples of Nazi propoganda, after all, but learning the techniques of such anti-Semitism is valuable. But I'm not seeing the EV here, so my doubts are increased. I'm just not sure that one page of one issue of a newspaper is enough when the image isn't even in the newspaper's page, and that they published it doesn't seem (at the moment) to be particularly significant. Is there more EV than I'm seeing? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs07:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 16:53:49 (UTC)
Reason
High quality large image. FP on Commons. Adds value to article as although not info box image being a portrait of its head, the head is the key feature of one of Africa’s ‘ugly five’
Only the nominated version has its own article, which is very specific and has the provenance for this painting. I corrected the nomination to include the link. --Andrei (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I do not use any tools and extract images directly from Google. They use some kind of algorithm to improve images with time. As a rule, they fix the color scheme to make it more natural but also reduce the size from time to time. Thank you Adam for restoring the original, I think 1px is not worth it. --Andrei (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2020 at 22:35:37 (UTC)
Reason
Only documented formal photo of Harriet Jacobs, carefully restored. There are one or two others floating around on the internet, but there's a reliable source noting this as the only known formal portrait of her, and I don't see any sources for the others, so I'm inclined to doubt. (Source for this one: [4])
We already have a FP of a male here, it was promoted last year. But the nom image is much sharper. I suggest putting the existing FP up for a delist vote first, or concurrently. Oppose as is, i.e. having two images of a male. Bammesk (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally agree, but this is a very special case Bammesk There is doubt about the number of possible subspecies of Furcifer pardalis. There may even be as many as fourteen different species. The males are sometimes described as colour morphs or forms. At the moment, the safest definition is to define locale. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These have the same color pattern, green with dark vertical stripes and one white horizontal stripe. The only difference is the brown spots on the face, nothing major, the article text doesn't go into facial details so I don't see EV for two FPs. Sorry but my suggestion stands. Bammesk (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree this is poorly used. There's a description of its facial anatomy later in the article. With a suitable caption (and possibly labels) EV would be drastically increased.Your photography is clearlg better than the lead image, but the angle of the head is similar to the lead image, which also has the rest of the body, so it's a little redundant where it is now, and there's no caption to explain it where it is now.
This isn't a simple case like male/female/juvenile or multiple morphs where the EV needs a mere word under it. A zoom in on one feature needs to be next to discussion of that feature. Since there are some discussions of head anatomy, if they're expanded slightly, grouped together, and this image is put next to them, suitably captioned, it's an easy FP, especially if labelled. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam's comments above. I think a head shot (of an animal) needs either sufficient EV (as elaborated by Adam) or significant wow factor. In the article, I see brief mentions of jaw, teeth (not depicted), and the nostril placement. Not sufficient enough IMO to favor it over a full body shot. My vote could be different if I saw significant wow factor, but wow factor is a subjective thing and I don't see enough of it, sorry, (the angled composition and foreground shadow don't work for me, sorry). With all of that said, this is still an excellent photo and we are lucky to have it in en-WP. Bammesk (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – but how about a slight crop on top? see suggestion crop on right. I think the extra space takes the focus away from the bird. I know this is FP on Commons and you can do a CSS crop in the article, but still, I find the top distracting. Bammesk (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I checked the original - the TIFF, which should really have been uploaded to Commons as well - and the levels adjustment seems to have blown out the highlights - losing detail in the large explosion near the middle, and turning some subtle smoke and mist around the plane right of that into something that visually dominates, which isn't in the original - it also emphasised the graininess unnecessarily. It's not the best photo, but could still be valuable despite that, but I think we can ask for the best version of this photo. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs06:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'd somewhat prefer the three images in the article as a set. Each provides information the others don't. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs10:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2020 at 15:17:04 (UTC)
Reason
A lovely illustration by Jenny Nyström, who popularised the use of these jultomte as a Christmas tradition. Because there's no point getting our Christmas FPs out too near Christmas if we want them to run on Christmas. The filename uses the Norwegian spelling of Nyström's name, since it comes from the National Library of Norway. Feel free to point out any missed damage. It's a big file, and, while I've been diligent, it's always possible some was missed.
Support – Iconic. Interesting point: This looks to be printed in at least 7 colors, maybe more. The raster screen is hand-made - a lost art! --Janke | Talk20:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make eight: yellow, brown, blue, cyan, red, peach, grey, black. The greens and oranges are combinations. That's actually not too far off modern standards in a way. Might be a second grey. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs01:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some inkjets use 6 or more colors - but standard lithography is just CMYK these days. What fascinates me is that this example shows hand-made half-toning screens. --Janke | Talk08:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2020 at 10:49:13 (UTC)
Reason
a striking image, high resolution and restored to remove aging damage, with high encyclopedic value in demonstrating the tactics of Nazi propaganda in glamorizing Nazi leaders
I'll also note that I can't support this nomination on principle given that it's propaganda for one of the most loathsome regimes in history and an ideology which still commands a following among racists and bigots - this this was to become a FP it could lead to a perception that Wikipedia approves of this kind of ideology. I appreciate that the motivation for improving this image is to illustrate what the highly effective propaganda tactics used by the Nazis looked like, and this is a much less loathsome example of their work than anti-Semitic and similar posters so there is genuine EV. An option for a FP, and I'm not sure how it could be executed, would be an image combining this poster with a photo of what Goring actually looked like at the time to illustrate how ludicrous and manipulative the poster is. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This pathetic preposterous piece of crap propaganda has zero minimal EV for Eng.-lang. readers, and does not belong on the Main Page. Wegwerfen. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if you spent hours restoring a historically valuable artwork, only to have it dismissed as a "pathetic piece of crap"? The image is used in three articles, so how does it have "zero EV"? (t · c) buidhe13:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've softened my comments above, but as a lifelong student of the rise of Nazism and attendant topics I see scant EV in a blatantly hagiographic, and inept, depiction of one of modern history's most contemptible figures. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The actual quote is, in context, evidence for the German public knowing about the Holocaust, as well as a reference to it. While Nazi propoganda, this image serves a useful educational purpose in what it admits to. Honestly, I think Sca and Janke aren't considering the value of admissions from Nazis in their propoganda that can be useful for disproving later lies. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs23:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you note what I said: "Propaganda art is OK in an article about it"... As such, having this image on the front page would not entice viewers to read the article - it lacks the "wow" I expect from all FPs. --Janke | Talk06:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am really uneasy about putting Nazi propaganda on Wikipedia's front page. It is certainly educational, but... well, I think we should discuss the text blurb that will accompany this. Is it already drafted? The current caption here will need some changes, for example, we don't list sources/external links like this on the Main Page, do we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I wanted it on the main page, actually I support Nick-D's suggestion that it should go on the list of featured images unsuitable for the main page. (t · c) buidhe19:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FPs are by definition eligible for the MP. If we want ban this prospective FP from the MP, why promote it as an FP at all? – Sca (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is currently a debate [5] (or effort) in the U.S. on removing statues of confederate icons from public parks and squares and placing them in museums (or other suitable places). I think certain statues do belong in museums, not in public squares. I see somewhat of a similarity between that debate and this nom. Should images like this be confined to article space, or should they be given additional visibility outside of article space? My answer is: confined to article space. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Posting images of Nazi bigwigs or other despicable historical characters on the Main Page could be misconstrued as WP support/endorsement of their deeds or blather. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't. Let them read about the topics in the multitudinous relevant articles. (And BTW, Lee wasn't in quite the same class as a Göring or, say, a Dzerzhinsky.) Sca (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Fine, you got what you wanted—blocked a picture, not because it fails the featered picture criteria, but on purely ideological grounds. Maybe you should nominate all the currently featured Nazi propaganda to be delisted, at least for consistency's sake. (t · c) buidhe07:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geni: I removed them. For the record: the three fine lines were on the white border, not on the scroll itself, and they looked like scanner edge stitch marks. Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 16:23:04 (UTC)
Reason
Nice view of the costume, and the opera being one of the most obscure Massenet operas means that there aren't a huge amount of resources for it, so it's a lucky find. There's a couple other options - a closeup of Arbell's face, and one that I'm not quite convinced is from Bacchus, whereas this one has some very strong evidence. Beyond that, there's a few set designs, but that's more for when the article's more developed.
A bit, but given Bacchus's lack of modern performance history, it's not excessively so. Only thing missing, really, is a plot summary, which, again, is probably to do with it being a foreign-language work without modern performances. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs19:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2020 at 16:47:20 (UTC)
Reason
It's passed Commons, and, as far as I can tell, only didn't pass here a month ago because of a low point of participation around the time of its last nomination. More information at that nomination.
@Charlesjsharp: I'd say that's less of an issue at FPC, and more of something that needs done before POTD. Given we're in the middle of COVID-19, and libraries are closed, I think it's reasonable to kick that down the road a bit. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs14:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but this is FPC, not GAC. Definitely something to be worked on, but I think an FP can be used to drive people to articles to improve them, so am not too worried about them if they're above a certain level. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The filename was confusing or incorrect because it seems this painter was not commonly known as Pascal; I've changed it accordingly. I also adjusted the shadows. (t · c) buidhe22:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn I didn't realize that this was nominated before. Although I was unable to find any higher-resolution/better quality photographs online, hopefully one will be uploaded in the future. (t · c) buidhe04:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2020 at 19:27:17 (UTC)
Reason
A fine poster, advertising the music score, contemporaneous with the first productions, with art by the same person as designed the costumes for the première (hence, I presume, the date: The opera premièred early 1896, but a lead time would get 1895 for the art easily.
I'd say a major, major opera can have one FP per Act. And many have (see Aida). The only requirement for an FP in the line of what you propose is that the article is robust enough to hold them, and that they aren't redundant to each other - each shows something differently valuable. Otherwise, we're in a situation where we're basically saying every image but the first in an article should never be improved.
If we go by your requirement, why should anyone **ever** improve anythng but the main image of an article? Why bother photographing juveniale birds? Why would I put 10 hours into restoring any image but the lead?
I get all this. Is this performance in France particularly significant? I would argue that an image of a juvenile bird could qualify as "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to article", but I would normally nominate the infobox image first. Many of my "second in article" nominations fail here e.g. the panther chameleon current nomination which I suggest adds hugely to the article, but voters here disagee. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clear up a misconception: This is from the first production worldwide, by the costume and prop designer for the first production, and predates the first production in France by three years (and the first production worldwide by a couple months). The Ricordi publishing company was basically Puccini's patron. I presume Italian versions of this same advertisement exist, but Italian libraries are pretty, er... locked down to us. It's by the same exact artist, and same timeframe as the poster at the start of the article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Oppose struck. I normally support the image that adds most value to an article (I thought we all did) and I'd be interested how Bammesk sees this issue, comparing his oppose of my nom of the reptile. I think we should be consistent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your comment 'the one in the infobox has more EV', which is what I'm arguing here (though not opposing). 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
About the reptile nom: my quote is "a full body photo, like the one in the infobox, has more EV." [8] It has more EV not because it is in the infobox, it has more EV because it is a full body photo. By saying "like the one in the infobox", I meant "such as" that photo, I meant to point you to it. I used commas, one on each side, to isolate it as an example photo. The comment's rationale was "a full body shot .... has more EV". And I inserted an example in the dotted lines. I elaborate more in the reptile nom. Bammesk (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't think we should be falling out over this. The community here is generally very mutually supportive. I'm going to take a short break and see you all later. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2020 at 00:47:46 (UTC)
Reason
High quality lead image. Closeup of Crepidotus variabilis, a fungi species. This specimen is 9mm in diameter. The species doesn't have its own article, the image is used in the genus article Crepidotus.
Charles, I suggest you do your homework first and check the file description page before making statements like that. This was voted 17 to nil on Commons [9]. This is just a cropped version, cropped for infobox (too much empty space for infobox). Also, don't cast aspersions, be specific when you comment, calling something "not the best" doesn’t mean anything, it's just an aspersion unless you say why, do you object the focus, the colors, or what? Lastly, Commons FP is not a requirement. I know you want it to be, but it is not. Bammesk (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Steady on, my friend! I didn't object, I commented. I didn't spot it was FP because the file description page makes no mention of FP because you uploaded a crop of a Famberhorst FP. I can't be expected to notice that it is derived from an existing file - that's not "homework"! You should mention this in the nomination "Reason" to help voters. I didn't vote for the FP as it is too soft for my taste and has a weird halo, but I do not oppose Commons FPs here on technical grounds as the majority decision has been made. I am not obliged to support though. You are of course entitled to upload modified versions of other people's photos, but I hate it when people do it to mine. I think one should always ask the authors if they are still active. Also, you've made a mistake on the catgegories as you have duplicated the image in FP categories. Your crop is not FP at Commons, so this and the user categories need to be removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The onus isn't on nominators to show you a Commons FP nom, Commons FP is not a requirement here at en-WP. When you comment, the onus is on you to do it right (regardless of vote). You suggested the image quality isn't up to Commons FP, wrong, it is, and wrong because Commons FP is not a requirement, and then you didn't say why, another wrong, and this last wrong is a big deal. "This is not one of the best" on its own is meaningless. It is an opinion, but it says nothing about the image. When you write a negative critique, say the specifics upfront, say it is the focus and the halo, and say it upfront, not after a back and forth. . . . . Uploading a crop as a separate file doesn't need an ask. . . . . The categories were automatically assigned by CropTool, not me. They were inherited from the original. You can drop a note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, there may be a reason for it. Bammesk (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2020 at 01:30:57 (UTC)
Reason
Highly historically valuable image. The quality could be better, however in my opinion the historical value and compelling human interest of the image outweighs its flaws.
Comment There's a line on the cheek of the man who's standing up a bit more; I think it's an artefact as it looks misplaced for a scar. There's also a speck roghtly left and slightly down of the nose on the crouching figure. Minor specks elsewhere, including on the left... gendarme (?)'s face, but those seem the most important. Otherwise, looks pretty good, but I do like a little bit of extra attention to faces. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Done all these things (hopefully) — this is the first photograph I've tried to restore to FP quality, so I really appreciate the feedback! (t · c) buidhe19:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. There's still a bright spot on the cheek of the left man in the kepi in the back, which I'd remove as well, but SupportAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs19:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an obviously posed photo with little EV - if this was really a "street fight", why would French gendarmes be standing together in the background making themselves obvious targets, and what's the soldier in the background doing just hanging around with his gun in its sling when the American soldier and resistance fighter are in combat? And why was the photographer standing in the street between the supposed fighters and whoever they were fighting to take this photo? A high proportion of "combat" photos from World War II were posed, but usually not as blatantly as this. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the French resistance article, you can see that virtually no photographs show the French resistance in action, they are all either post-liberation or show prisoners in German captivity. So unless there are better images to be had, I think this one retains significant EV. (t · c) buidhe11:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. We have historically blocked FP for photos that, like this one, have subjects who appear to be identifiable but have not been identified. Knowing who they were could go some way towards clarifying the seemingly-staged nature of the photo. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for the protagonists of a famous photograph to be unidentified. The Osprey book which has the photograph on its cover does not give their names or any additional information than is in the NARA caption, nor can I find it anywhere online. (t · c) buidhe21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a staged photograph necessarily lacks EV. This painting does not accurately depict the Battle of Austerlitz, rather it is a staged composition, but it is used as the lead image because we have no better images to use. I submit that this case is much the same, as it is dangerous to take photographs when combat is actually occurring. Should we delist Adam Cuerden's opera posters because they are promotional, not particularly realistic, and don't perfectly represent the opera in progress? (t · c) buidhe21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that this is a badly staged photo. The photographer didn't even ask the guys hanging around in the background to get out of shot. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - It's certainly staged, but the frightening lack of firearm safety by that lieutenant is astounding. He's about to shoot the Frenchman in the leg. Yikes. Not good in terms of realism or professionalism. -- Veggies (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but I really think that a flower FP should show stamen & pistils to have enough EV. Easy to reshoot such an image. --Janke | Talk10:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2020 at 19:06:09 (UTC)
Reason
This was the poster that made Alphonse Mucha's career, as well as a lovely example of Art Nouveau. However, I must point out a downside: This is the reprint from Les Maîtres d'Affiche, a roughly contemporaneous reprint, but a reprint nonetheless.
Oppose Ah! I've just asked a question at Commons that you've answered here. The source image is poor quality compared to the original and should not be the one we feature. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most visually impressive image, but high EV. It's uploaded by the museum, so that removes any worries as regards the photograph. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2020 at 11:21:03 (UTC)
Reason
As far as I understand the criteria, I believe this picture meets them. It has high EV and sculptures are somewhat underrepresented among the Featured Pictures. I would actually like to nominate the whole set of the four panels of the altarpiece, but can't find any instructions on how to do it, if it's at all possible.
Weak oppose Currently, this image is part of a gallery. There isn't much commentary on each part of the panels, so I'm not seeing the contextual significance expected of featured pictures. However, this could easily be remedied by expanding the article with commentary about each part, removing the images from the gallery and putting them alongside the prose. (t · c) buidhe11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Thanks for your comments and suggestions, I think they make a lot of sense. Unfortunately though, I've been going through the sources I have and don't think I have sufficient material for a proper expansion of the article, at least not at the moment. Is it possible to close this nomination and, if I eventually manage a meaningful expansion, re-nominate the set? Thanks for your help, I'm rarely in this part of Wikipedia. Yakikaki (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, I think I've managed to find a really useful source among my books actually. Sorry for the mixed message, but I think I could be able to address these issues and get back soon with an improved article and use of the images. Yakikaki (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Can the current setup convince you? I've expanded the article (and will probably keep adding a few things later since I've managed to find good sources) and re-arranged the pictures. I think this is the best I'll be able to do for the panels, and still keep them coherently together and in a place within the article that makes sense. Yakikaki (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – there are two dark spots, in the middle near the bottom, they don't look they belong there, I think they can be cleaned up. Bammesk (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Genuine war picture, not staged... ;-) Those little black clouds are from flak fire - the photo might be added to that article, too. --Janke | Talk10:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer Alt, I introduced an alternate by the same photographer. It is just as detailed at the same magnification of starfish, and it has better depth of field/focus. Bammesk (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2020 at 14:45:29 (UTC)
Reason
Detailed view of Tatev monastery and its surroundings. Sidenote: first nom [10] showed more of the surroundings but it was less detailed and a slightly stretched photo.
Support - good, representative, high-quality image of a notable subject. Shame about the scaffolding, temporary roof and other building site debris, but it's an accurate depiction of the site as it stood at the time, and much higher-quality than alternatives that don't have this. TSP (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Charles. The scaffolding and such is likely removed now, and temporary additions to an ancient structure, with no discussion of the work being done (at least, not next to the image - if this was moved to the renovations section...), just doesn't seem to work. A pity, as the quality is excellent, but the EV is wanting because of that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs20:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be completed now, I think it's this: "The reconstruction of the Church of Surb Astvatsatsin to its original appearance was incorporated in the first stage of the Tatev monastic complex restoration. Work began in August 2016 and finished in October 2018." TSP (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, do you think placing the image in the revival and restoration section (with an updated caption) gives it sufficient EV? There is a mention of the cable car station as well (in top left corner). Bammesk (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) . . . . . By the way, Charles didn't say any of what you said. He gave no hints at all. The words "more encyclopedic", on their own, without context, leave the reader sitting and guessing. His comments too often border on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, examples [11], [12]. So often that I think it's disruptive. The instructions on top of this page call for "specific rationale". Just about all participants intuitively comment with some level of specificity. See Sca's comment here for example: "artsy composition", he is very clear.[reply]
I did consider suggesting this move; but decided it wouldn't make it better. Putting it in that section would suggest it's a picture of the scaffolding; and, as a picture of the scaffolding, it isn't great, because the vast majority of the image is not devoted to the scaffolding or indeed the cable car. TSP (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's leave it where it is. I agree the scaffolding isn't ideal, but this is the sharpest clearest image we have, and the scaffolding isn't totally out of context given the renovation section of the article. Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2020 at 17:01:04 (UTC)
Reason
80+ Megapixel scan of a poster from a notable opera by a notable composer, based on a notable play by an even more notable playwright. Article on the opera could be longer, but it's also used in the play and playwright's articles, and FPs can help draw attention to articles.
Oppose restoration needs more work to be featured quality, in my opinion. At full magnification I can still see many spots (on the hair, clothes, and other parts of the image) that look like damage to the negative rather than part of the original. The smudges on the tie also look unnatural, although I can see they are part of the original .tif rather than the result of clumsy editing. (t · c) buidhe16:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, I annotated some spots on Commons. His left eye has two bright spots, the lower spot isn't real, it doesn't match his right eye. The image isn't sharp at full size, but the pixel count is high and it meets the pixel count requirement even after a scale down. I did a quick google search and there are very few photos of him from that era. This image is from the archives of the U.S. congress, so I am inclined to support for its EV, once the annotated spots are touched up. Bammesk (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming this nomination is basically dead at this point, but would encourage a re-nom soon after it closes (with, perhaps, enough time for the uncropped image to settle in). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs00:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent actually, not "interesting" Armbrust (although I know you don't mean interesting). The first infobox image for marsh fritillary was rejected by Bammesk with reason "there are better images in the article". The second is an FP. And see comments below. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, this photo was taken very early in the morning. Lovely photo, but not encyclopaedic (or often seen) adding little value to the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is lovely photography, but it being cut off limits EV. It's way better quality than the lead, but I'm not sure the crop of half the lizard is justified. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs22:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2020 at 15:08:43 (UTC)
Reason
Portrait of Nina Simone at the peak of her career in 1965. The photo shows her in Amsterdam during her European tour. A tighter crop of this portrait has been the lead image since 2013. I recently restored the photo and widened the crop.
I thought copyright rested with the creator Kroon, not an organisation that has a print/the original. And are you sure you can crop an artist's photo? But I'm no copyright expert. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The National Archive of the Netherlands says it's licenced CC0 by the copyright holder (whoever that might be). I see no reason to disbelieve them. CC0 allows cropping and any other use you might like. It is not the case that any national copyright law disallows cropping of copyrighted works. What they might disallow is cropping without permission of the copyright holder. But here we have been told, authoritatively, that this permission has been granted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I don't have to ask it, YOU should ask it at Commons:Help desk. You are not a newbie, participation at en-Wiki requires competence, see WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPT. Your questions in this nom are disruptive. Your copyright question relates to 400,000 files in This category, if you aren't clear and want to take issue with the copyright, then fine, do it at Commons help desk. Your crop question relates to all files on Commons, same thing with that, take it to Commons help desk. This nomination is not a help page for newbies, which by the way you are not. Bammesk (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to be a bit more civil, shall we? I think, given it was uploaded here by the library. we can presume the rights were released, either to them or to public domain. While libraries aren't perfect (nothing is), we can generally trust them. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs00:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. I accidentally linked the lossless, PNG version, not the JPEG that's used in articles. They should be identical, save for Wikipedia's sharpening software failing to render PNGs properly. I've switched it back over. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs17:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]