Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2022 at 19:37:22 (UTC)
Reason
While necessarily imperfect - bits of the plane get in the photo - it's by far the best photo of the bombing of Hamburg I can find, showing the devastation in a hugely compelling way
Comment As a general comment, this looks like a post-war photo. It was likely from one of the many sightseeing flights RAF bomber crews made over Germany after the war to see the results of their bombing and show the ground crew what they had contributed to (yes, it was ghoulish). As a result, this is a somewhat sanitised version of the results of the bombing, believe it or not, as the roads had been cleared of rubble, demolitions had begun, etc. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the above, it is an important photo, showing the devastation of war - what we see in Ukraine right now. --Janke | Talk18:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revisionist caption should be changed. These buildings were destroyed by a firestorm which was not planned. (Unsigned edit by Charlesjsharp) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"Not planned"? I think it must have been obvious considering the amount of explosives and incendiaries used... --Janke | Talk13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage says: "it is one of the few Warner Bros. shorts from that era that fell into the public domain, although it has seen releases from MGM/UA Home Video and Warner Home Video." - if that can be confirmed, I'll support! (BTW, I don't think it is a coincidence that the "bad guy" bears a resemblance to Walt Disney... ;-) --Janke | Talk16:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cant really see any concrete evidence its in public domain but I have seen it being sold by third party distributors. GamerPro6420:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupportif the copyright can be verified. If anyone can check the Film Superlist book in a nearby library search here. We can suspend the nom, if anyone volunteers to check the book. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Film Superlist book, Volume 2 (1940-1949). Contrary to what I assumed, the book doesn't list motion pictures which have fallen into public domain. The book is a better organized compilation of the data in the Online database on motion pictures released from 1940 to 1949, including any renewals 28 years after the original release, plus supplementary info (search reports) on some releases.
I searched the book and the Dover Boys cartoon is not listed in it. I also searched the Online database for motion picture registrations in 1941, 1942, 1943, as well as motion picture renewals in 1969, 1970, 1971 and the Dover Boys cartoon is missing. So there is no record that this cartoon was ever registered for copyright, nor a record that it was ever renewed. (On a sidenote: the Film Superlist book does have copyright registration info for 93 Looney Tunes cartoons and 140 Merrie Melodies cartoons.)
I think the Commons copyright tag is valid (i.e. no renewal). Plus, the cartoon may not have been registered with the copyright office (there is no record of its registration). Pinging the nominator and participants who voted conditionally @GamerPro64, Adam Cuerden, Janke, and MER-C:. Bammesk (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2022 at 22:20:41 (UTC)
Reason
I think the fact that it's an original poster to a notable opera, still performed today (and I can absolutely guarantee this because I was in it) is enough. It's artistically quite nice, it gets the point of the piece quite well, and shows all the main characters of the second scene (due to cast doubling, there's no way to include all the characters, and I don't think I've ever actually seen promotional work for this opera dealing with the then-present-day scenes).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 10:37:15 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution. Large enough that "Llave de la Ciudad" (Key to the City) is legible. Plus, it's a pretty neat key. I'd open doors far more often if that were my key.
Their faces aren't sharp when viewed at full size, so the photo is technically subpar (for a contemporary photo of stationary subjects). Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 01:38:22 (UTC)
Reason
The first nomination didn't go so well, but I think part of that was the colour balance, which was rather hurting this one. Firstly, there was a bug in the version of GIMP I was using at the time that made images substantially redder, and second, the LoC scan is a little odd colour-wise itself. I've dropped the saturation a little bit, resaved without the bug, and I think the strengths - A photo of an actress in the original production of a major, major Broadway show - now shine through
Oppose – It's an important image, and a valuable one to have on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure the quality is where it needs to be for a FP (and this is no the fault of the wonderful restoration work that Adam is doing). The image is fairly soft overall, lots of detail is lost in the shadows, and, as mentioned above, the composition and cropping are off. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 15:40:44 (UTC)
Reason
Quite a lovely image. Long-stable in many of the articles in a damaged version, and in an alternative version in others. Probably the best early image for the Presidio.
@Bammesk: Good catch! Think that slipped in when I was fixing that long diagonal damaged area that ends there, and it blended in well enough that I didn't notice. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs02:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 03:41:09 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, used in infobox, and has received many positive feedbacks on Commons FP candidate page with no opposition as of when I nominate it here. Also, this is the only image of the architecture during the 2022 Taiwan Lantern Festival on Commons (but I will upload more afterwards).
Support – I was initially a bit concerned about the top border, which looks like someone went overboard with the clone tool, but it's present on the original as well so it must just be an artifact of the process of how the card was made. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I add the dimensions? Well, I did now. He did do photography. Will see what I can find. Or did you mean Purdy? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs11:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that we should digitally restore photos but only physically conserve paintings and drawings. The presented one is in a very good condition and I am not sure what you want to adjust here. --Andrei (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File info says it is a "watercolor", and I don't see any signs of it being a litho. Some small hairs suggest that this is a scan of a transparency (probably medium or large format), thus the slight graininess - a lot less than would be expected from the stone of a litho print. --Janke | Talk06:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Just presumed it was a hand-coloured etching or a slightly-too-low-res scan of a lithograph. I guess that justifies it, but I can't help but thinking the colours look off, and it's slightly cut off on the lower right hand side. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs16:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with Adam. This can use some restoration, especially in the sky area. There are many marks and blemishes that clearly aren't part of the original painting. Colors, brightness and contrast should remain as is IMO. Bammesk (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 15:13:22 (UTC)
Reason
Forgive the two nominations in a row, but I do have a ten-image backlog even including these, so I am trying to be good here. I think this is a fine image, quite good for showing off the structure as it historically was. I think the dome on the tower is the most obvious change from present day. I've gone with original crop; Given the Detroit Publishing Company's works tend to follow very strict ratios, I believe this is how it would have been published. More accurate than the illustrations that are our only other historic guide. Admittedly, could be lower down in the article, but the article's full of modern photos, so it's hard to say.
Comment I don't think this adds much value to the article. (ps You are not alone in having a backlog, but there are very few voters around these days) Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden Sorry for your loss. When you have more time to devote to Wikipedia again we might want to consider this as a change to {{POTD row}}, adding "Vote for featured pictures" to the end of the "Archive" row similar to DYK's a "nominate an article" link. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Nominate and vote for featured pictures"? And it's kind of alright. I promptly caught COVID and have been sleeping like, 14 hours a day since. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs16:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the size, this feels sufficiently sharp. A wider focal plane would be ideal, but it's only the slightest bit out of focus where it is. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs14:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 14:45:19 (UTC)
Reason
Another of the excellent images released by the Swedish Performing Arts Agency. Not too bad of a restoration. (original, for comparison). I'd say this is one of the two best images of her, the other being File:Fausta Labia, rollporträtt - SMV - H5 033.tif, but this shows her face better.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 15:03:13 (UTC)
Reason
This is my first nomination of a featured picture. I was taken by this photograph which seems to have artistic and educational merit. Potential flaws are that the photographer's name is included at the bottom and at the highest resolution, there are some image artifacts. The framing and background are artistically attractive inviting the viewer to look more closely and see the detail of the words on the sculpture, which are quotes from the subject.
Articles in which this image appears
Brenda Fassie in English and in many other languages
There are a few quibbles I have: It's an artistic monochrome, and possibly a bit heavily post-processed, which I'd normally object to as misleading, but for a bronze sculpture, I think it works. The signature in the lower right is kind of distracting, but it's not from Wikipedia, so that may justify it a bit. I'm inclined to Support, but I imagine those will be the biggest issues with the nomination if there are any. (Well, that, and we honestly need more voters if we're going to keep a quorum of five). Anyway, welcome to Featured Pictures! Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs21:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version with the signature/watermark edited out. I have no experience in such things and used MS Paint, so if it can be done better, please do so. I thought the new version would appear above, but it hasn't and I don't know how to make that happen. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2022 at 02:48:07 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of Boeing E-3 Sentry, commonly known as AWACS, it's identified by its radar dome. The aircraft is used by U.S. and NATO forces for surveillance, command, control and communication. This photo has a few dust spots in the background (small dark patches) which I will remove if the nom gets a few supports. This was shot in 2021.
Oppose Not quite where it needs to be to be a featured picture. The shadows are too deep, and the background is too contrasty to make the plane really stand out. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a couple of FPs of auroras: [2][3]. If this passes we can delist one of the inferior images. Also we usually wait 7 days before nominating an image (per FP criterion #5) just to make sure the image remains stable in the article. Bammesk (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of those two the first isn't used on the Aurora article, since the aurora itself isn't terribly interesting but it's still valuable as a featured picture of Amundsen-Scott station, and the second is a video. I think there's value in keeping all three. We could switch the category of this image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture if it would make it less redundant. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2022 at 19:39:23 (UTC)
Reason
High quality image, is a featured picture and was a picture-of-the-year candidate on Commons. Serves as a dramatic lead image to the lightning article.
Same as the above nom, we have two FPs: [4][5], if this passes we can delist an inferior FP. It was added to 2 of the articles today, we usually wait 7 days (FP criterion 5). Bammesk (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 21:24:26 (UTC)
Reason
A version of this image has been stable in her article for years; I tracked down a better copy. It's a nice image for historical photography. I know that Van Vechten's way of composing his photos can range from beloved to hated on here depending on photo, but this seems a simple, well-executed profile photo with a confident expression, and I think it's lovely. Good companion photo to the one of her husband.
Support. Beyond merely being a very elegant composition (although it is), I think this clearly conveys the nature of the place, maybe more clearly than the more typical "building in landscape" photo such as the other one illustrating the article. As such it has a strong encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before you go further with this nomination, please sort out which version should be nominated. Right now it looks like there is a file from a jpeg source upload on a png first file. None of these is the full and best hi-res png of tif photo directly from NASA's home page. cart-Talk16:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The full sized images from NASA (TIFF and PNG) both exceed the maximum file size of Wikimedia Commons, I'm afraid. Ddevault (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's not the first big image we've had on Commons. I've now cut the image in half and both sections are avaliable on Commons: 1 and 2. This is how we usually deal with very large files of detailed photos. cart-Talk17:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can close/withdraw this nom and nominate the photos as a set (like this one), and displaying them side by side just takes a bit of coding. Here is one way of doing it. (Open in editing window to see the code) cart-Talk17:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's better. Users are going to want to click through to see a larger version, and not in two different browser tabs, and at the thumbnail size there's no advantage to the split method. I think the better approach is to simply let users who want the huge version click through to the NASA source from the image page. Ddevault (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I also think we should nominate the very first image that was published, i.e. the "Webb’s First Deep Field" image: [6] It's perhaps not quite as visually stunning as this, but your thoughts really can get lost among those galaxies some 13 billion LY away... --Janke | Talk07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Big NACK to the JPEG version. I would never see this image represented with a lossy file format. I will change it back. Ddevault (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, did you really confer with the nominator, Ddevault, before changing the format? See above comment. FYI to all parties here, Yann has nominated the jpeg version for FP on Commons. Often the same version is FP across wiki-projects. It would be great if we could agree on one and the same version of this image. On Commons there are FPs in all formats, jpeg, png, even tifs. --cart-Talk14:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PNGs have a display bug that the Wikipedia coders have no desire to fix. Basically, they aren't sharpened. Apparently, this is a good thing because it can be used for specific use cases, which hardly justifies breaking an entire class of files. Also, yeah, Support JPEG. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs03:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thumbnail is not ideal, but for those who want to click through to the full quality it would be a travesty if they got a lossy JPEG version. Ddevault (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are thumbnails and links to the other versions of the image on the jpeg's file page, as well as the others. Such crosslinks should always be present on well-maintained (and especially FP) pages. That way the image looks good at thumb and those interested in exploring it, can check out the desired version. cart-Talk10:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair enough. I agree that the thumbnail quality is better and so long as all of the cross-links are in place I suppose it's fine. I put the JPEG version back. Ddevault (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd rather see the uncropped original ([7]), which appears to be a lithograph of Nadar's photo, showing the telltale impressions in the paper, and also Nadar's "signature". It would need a bit of restoration, though (e.g. removal of vignetting, dust) - @Bammesk: ? --Janke | Talk08:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2022 at 02:35:20 (UTC)
Reason
Nominated this in a slow period last time; think it should be a featured picture, and Commons would agree with me. That it's stable as lead in Pitcher's article is probably enough, but I think it also adds a unique flair to Princess Ida - it's the only costume design.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 12:46:23 (UTC)
Reason
A striking high-quality focus-stacked image showing calyx, corolla and styles. It is the infobox image in the Adenium obesum article in en and fr wikis. Valued Image on Commons.
Comment It's largely really good, but a lot of it seems to be a bit out of focus when you zoom in. Could you recheck your focus stack masks? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs02:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I took only 7 images with manual focussing. Some of the white areas in the petals are slightly fuzzy in all 7 images. I have already done the best I could with retouching in ZereneStacker. --Tagooty (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think Support, then, as there's a lot of good parts, but a bigger stack might do you well next time, annoying as it is. It's a little odd to see blurred bits between sharp bits. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs13:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'd rather see an image that actually showed the red tail. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like any of the ones we have that do show the tail are high enough quality at this time (this is probably the best of the bunch). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 19:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image for this subject, so lower quality may sometimes be allowed. Q𝟤𝟪07:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think, though it's one that's going to be very hard for us to judge. This kind of image - lower quality, but possibly an iconic image of a tragedy - is really hard to judge if you don't speak the language. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs03:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is still criterion 1 at WP:FP?. While this image may meet 4-7, it fails 1-3. Zhwiki might have different standards, but I don't think it meets ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as per FP sub-criteria 1.4 this could bypass the first three sub-criteria's 1.1 to 1.3. This then raises the question whether the image meets 1.4. As per criteria 2 there is also an exception clause which could apply to this image. This could also pass the other requirements, even 3. However, coming back to uniqueness and the historical clause, I would say no. This is based on the reasoning that this is the second level of separation from the main incident. Further this second level of separation does not convey enough. This can also be compared with similar images that media houses have used, say with the number of flowers varying or the angle. While I have rejected the image as per FP's objective and subjective clauses, I am leaving this as a comment. These kind of journalistic images, off-hand, taken in the moment, are rare on Wikipedia. Placed alongside text and more context the images can wonderfully add to Wikipedia's voice. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just above the locomotive, that stained-glass effect on the background is a heat distortion from smoke or something? It looks odd, so I'd like to figure out what it is before supporting. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8% of all FPs02:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, that's the exhaust haze of the locomotive's engine. These locomotives run on a diesel engine. The power generated by the diesel engine is then converted to electricity. This electricity then runs electric motors which turn the locomotive's wheels. Therefore the name "diesel-electric locomotive". There is a brief description here: [9] and videos. In the nom photo, the front locomotive is a SD70M-2, it has a 16 cylinder diesel engine: [10]Bammesk (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]