Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2024 at 16:44:44 (UTC)
Reason
Good addition to the Beaufort Gyre article, in the Dynamical mechanisms section. It shows the weekly change in the Arctic sea ice coverage. Younger ice accumulation (first-year ice) is shown in darker shades, while older ice (four-year or older) is shown in white.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2024 at 03:21:54 (UTC)
Reason
Lead image in the Atlantis space shuttle article. It shows Atlantis in orbit during the STS-132 mission in 2010. The photo shows the Payload bay area in full, as well as the extended Canadarm (the remote manipulator arm).
Support & Comment - The Internet Archive link is about 50% larger (as cropped). To really nitpick, it could also be slightly rotated CCW... --Janke | Talk06:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nom and archived image [1] are the same size (except for the crop, and now the slight rotation). Your browser magnifications might be off. CCW rotation is now done, see latest upload [2]. Bammesk (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2024 at 12:38:31 (UTC)
Reason
This is the only known photograph of the Giado concentration camp. Its quality has some issues (it looks like it's been digitally softened), but... this is the only surviving image of a concentration camp, whose structure has since been destroyed.
I think an exception is called for here. It's the deadliest North African WWII concentration camp, and this is the only photo of it. No trace remains of the camp nor of the nearby medieval cemetery where the prisoners buried their dead—so not even a photo of ruins can be taken to replace or supplement it. ꧁Zanahary꧂13:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I'd be okay with giving this one a pass on resolution, since it's historical and exceeds 1500px on the long axis, but it's both low-contrast and kind of blurry up close. If there were a better copy of this image, I'd support it. Moonreach (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2024 at 07:35:36 (UTC)
Reason
Unanimously promoted to FP on Commons, as well as the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias. Used in many articles, most importantly being the headline image of its species, which is a FA
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2024 at 14:18:23 (UTC)
Reason
Good EV for the pandemic (even if it has to compete with a lot of other good-EV pictures on both pages it's on). Aesthetically interesting, contextually illustrative (of the concept of social distancing), and historically important. I'm nominating it under "Other" for a category because it doesn't fit neatly into any of the others. "People" comes closest, since this is a human thing, but there aren't that many people in the focus area of the image, so I'm stumped. Moonreach (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Interesting concept but poor execution. I really doubt the EV because this is a very wide aerial shot that very poorly depicts the social distancing. From this angle, it is nothing more than a courtyard with equally distant rectangles. The shadow on the lower half and the structures on the sides are distracting too. Regretful oppose but good concept. Any other angle resolving those points I raised have my support. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logic we usually use is that people advocating for change in laws, such as suffragettes, get filed under political. This is a little more subtle, as she's arguably advocating for societal change, but the movement culminated in Prohibition. She was also a religious leader of sorts. Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political? I'll let Armbrust decide.
Comment. Charles, are you certain that this is Scolia hirta unifasciata? I know very little about scoliid wasps, but the fact that the antennae are bright yellow rather than black doesn't seem to match that species, and the two separate yellow spots on the abdomen (rather than a single yellow band, as the Latin name implies) gave me pause. There are over 900 photos labeled Scolia hirta on Flicker (including some of the subsp. unifasciata), and I scrolled quickly through all of them looking for a parallel. While I did find a some individuals in which the abdominal dots had not fully fused into solid band, I didn't find a single instance of yellow antennae. When I widened my search to other Mediterranean scoliids, however, I came across a number of photos of Megascolia bidens that seem to match your wasp exactly. The female of that species has four yellow abdominal spots and short reddish antennae, but the male has only two spots and long bright yellow antennae. Compare these photos: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. All of these are identified as Megascolia bidens, and all of them seem to me to be a better fit for your wasp than Scolia hirta. I also found this paper, which confirms that M. bidens is found in Tunisia, where your photo was taken, and describes the distinguishing features of the species, including the yellow antennae and two abdominal spots on the male. I'm no expert, and I don't want to substitute my judgment for yours, but take a look at the photos and the paper and see what you think. Choliamb (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Choliamb for your hard work and correct analysis. There is a great danger in relying on others' identification and I fell into this trap. Charlesjsharp (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2024 at 16:32:28 (UTC)
Reason
Good visual depiction of global surface temperature changes from 1880 to 2023. Good addition to the "Total warming and trends" section of the Instrumental temperature record article.
Support No, quality is actually not so great (from Medium format) - probably flat scanner. But span of dynamic range is great and since it is film i support. --Petar Milošević (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't shot on film, and no scanner. See EXIF data. It was shot with a digital camera back. It's a digitial photo. Not so sharp at full size, but the large pixel count makes up for it. Bammesk (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2024 at 14:15:23 (UTC)
Reason
Another in a series of photographs of photographers. There are a couple other options (e.g. File:Russell-Lee-FSA.jpg), but this one was by far the most widely used, and the one that looked the worst in the old version. I'd say the crop is fairly conservative: I didn't crop any of him (except maybe a few pixels at the bottom: edges aren't perfectly straight), but did take a smidgen more off the right to centre him, and cropped the weird... reflection? damage? intruding lights? at the top, which still has more than ample headspace. (Compare File:Portrait of Russell Lee, FSA (Farm Security Administration) photographer - Original.tif)
Haha. But that out of focus areas really do bother me. It's an excellent shot with good EV. But since we don't have a time machine lying around in a hot tub to fix that focus issues, Oppose. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but, y'know, sharpening doesn't really work with film grain, and Charles would be here to oppose if I crop his legs out. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.05:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. There are some much sharper studio portraits from decades earlier, many of them seen here at FPC... Here, too, the focus seems to be in the wrong place. The eyes need to be in perfect focus, even if the Depth of field is shallow. --Janke | Talk20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decades earlier was a very different camera technology. The increase in film speed was met with a decrease in focus for a while. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.00:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I suspect there's somewhat of an issue in the 40s of them knowing what images were being used for. No need to get an amazing perfect focus in an image that's never going to be seen bigger than about 6" (15cm) tall at most, or is going to be halftone printed. 1910-1950 is kind of a nadir of photography, so I'd say the second, especially, is decent for the era. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.12:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This belongs in a gallery with other photos of people walking on walls, like Fred Astaire in Royal Wedding and Adam West and Burt Ward in the 1960s Batman TV series. Choliamb (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found the same photo with higher resolution, updated the file here and in the article. New file is 5,690 × 4,546 pixels, old one is 3,000 x 2,395. Artem.G (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2024 at 01:39:52 (UTC)
Reason
The Adventures of Prince Achmed is the oldest surviving feature-length animation. It's the best-known work by German director Lotte Reiniger and showcases her unique visual style, which used a novel multiplane camera setup to recreate the look of a shadow play.
Support; Note: The picture is fine and I supported it; but some spots are seen in the background when you zoom in. If there will be a good Alt, I'll prefer to support it indeed. Thank you MER-C. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the left side, there is a rider on a brown horse (in the river). Adjacent and behind that brown horse there are two white horses. You counted those two as one. Bammesk (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2024 at 14:31:46 (UTC)
Reason
Informative animation by NASA reveals the ocean floors and seabeds as the water level drops. Water depth is displayed as a parameter. To see the animation in full resolution you may need to change its display setting to "source".
Comment The picture needs some edits; especially, it's good that one removes some extra light (or whitish) spots, dots, and disturbing line-likes. Note: The article is good. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the original doesn't meet the size requirement, I found an alternative version of the image currently in Wings (1927 film)#Release and reception, a higher-resolution scan of a restored poster. There's not as much physical wear, although it could probably still use some digital retouching. Will swap it into some of the relevant articles unless there are objections. hinnk (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1. I'd also support a higher-res copy of the first version, too. I consider that to be the more visually interesting of the two, but both are good. Moonreach (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carlosmarkos2345 if you support Alt 1, then you need to say so, as have four other editors. As it stands currently, your vote applies to the originally nominated image, not the alternate image. Bammesk (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first photo is quite good, but would be better with a more neutral background. The underlying EV is good here given that Casio is best known for making affordable digital watches and this is a good example of their designs, but the placement of the image in a large gallery reduces the value of the image to readers. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Both images were nominated for FP on Commons and failed. The main reason was the distracting background. ZZZ'S12:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not withdrawing my vote for now, but at a closer glance it appears this illustration is neutral or even optimistic on Jewish immigration to the United States? It appears to depict the Jews gaining prosperity in the United States through "Perseverance and Industry" and acknowledging their persecution in the Russian Empire. If so, it might not be an educative illustration of antisemitic attitudes in the United States, or at the very least requires a more detailed caption in History of antisemitism in the United States. ―Howard • 🌽3312:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows "our first families driven out." At most I would call this mixed, rather than neutral, and I think its place in the antisemitism article is warranted. Moonreach (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That forest looks rather like an oil painting, which might indicate way too much compression, or a terrible camera. I'm not sure about image quality. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.21:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - This doesn't really grab me, as illustrations go, but it has plenty of information and a citation on the file page to back it up. Moonreach (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't love the colour scheme for the borders: I'm not colourblind, but with all the colours for the plates, telling dark green from dark blue and dark purple is very difficult unless you zoom in quite a bit. And then you have a magenta-red pair. There has to be a better way. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.21:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alt 1 is definitely better, the original looks upsampled (less detail even though a tad larger), and has practically blown highlights (255 in some channel), as well as detail loss in shadows (0 in places). Alt 1 needs a slight rotation, and black borders cropped. --Janke | Talk13:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: It's not square: The top's pretty much dead on horizontal, the bottom's angled. There's no way to crop the borders without cropping paint. I, for one, simply Support alt 1, no crop. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Alt 1 is better. But the painting is 21.2 feet wide, so at 3,874 × 2,269 pixels, the resolution is 15 pixels per inch. That's low. For a painting, fine details are lost at that resolution. I say 40+ pixels per inch would be Ok. Bammesk (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33: Okay, this is weird: The copy available on the Library of Congress, uncropped, is 4269 x 3038 px. This one is 5,276 × 3,618 px. However, if you look below the hand on the sign on the left, you will see a majorly blurry section. Not blurry as in the photo is blurry; the grain disappears. That's not in the current LoC copy. Given the grain size of the photo; I'm inclined to say the LoC copy is amply sized, and would probably choose a better scan over theoretical resolution. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.21:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it would be better to just create a new nomination if possible. it doesn't seem there is enough time to vote on the alt ―Howard • 🌽3319:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I struck this vote. Editor has less than 100 edits. See instructions on top of the WP:FPC page. However, thanks for the nom and your comments. Bammesk (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I don't see that in the FPC voting instructions, or the closing instructions. Also I don't think that's a good idea, because it would make it easy to double vote with a sockpuppet account. Bammesk (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct - it should be noted that this test film predates The Abyss, which is the first full film to feature CGI water. I think it's a good representation of not just the technology of CGI at the time, but also what experimental CGI productions were like in the late 80s to early 90s, typically being plotless and very short, intended less for a general audience and more for animators in the CGI industry. I also think it holds educational value specifically pertaining to Pixar in a vacuum as well as CGI, as AFAIK it, alongside Luxo Jr., was the first instance of the "What if *insert object or abstract concept here* had feelings?" concept that Pixar - and American CGI animation in general - has become known for. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning support, but wonder if we should have the intro logo. On the whole, Support: The Pixar logo trademarks might limit use more. Although, if we can get the Pixar logo, that'd probably be a neat addition to the Pixar page. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.19:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we know if the animation was ever legally published before 1 March 1989? The Wikipedia article says that it was exhibited in 1986, but the s:Copyright Act of 1976 says that "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Though, the Copyright Office's Circular 45 says that exhibiting a film at a film festival may constitute publication if "copies [are] made and [are] ready for distribution." prospectprospekt (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the Liquid Television episode featuring Beach Chair, and there is no copyright notice for it in the credits - it is listed as being distributed by "Expanded Entertainment". The fact the film had a distributor basically confirms it's copyrighted, so I will remove the file and repeal the entry. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I'm uneasy about the argument that this is PD, especially considering the discussion above. It seems likely that Pixar still considers "Beach Chair" copyrighted, and the only way to find out definitively would be a lawsuit. I don't think this is worth it. Moonreach (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 00:37:32 (UTC)
Reason
We now have copies of most of Alfred Hitchcock's silent films, and this one I think stands out among them. It's Hitchcock's first film to develop the "Hitchcockian" style we know today, and the article touches on a bunch of those elements and motifs. The restoration is a big improvement over previous releases, with better reproduction of the color scheme that Gainsborough Pictures used in the UK release (the opening scene is a good example, where instead of blue tinting it restores the amber tinting and blue toning used to look like street lighting at night).
Kind of inclined to agree that this is very low down the article. Weirdly, lead is an FP, and, while I don't think this is necessarily a case where we need to delist one to promote one - different fur colours are, at least, good for showing variation - I do think this is a much more encyclopedic lead image and would like to see the current lead stay in the article, but lower down. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.23:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2024 at 14:29:14 (UTC)
Reason
It is high-resolution (2,200 × 2,835 px), and captures Abraham Lincoln's likeness better than any other portrait. The Wikipedia caption of the image says "Lincoln’s character was notoriously difficult to capture in pictures, but Alexander Gardner’s close-up portrait, quite innovative in contrast to the typical full-length portrait style, comes closest to preserving the expressive contours of Lincoln’s face and his penetrating gaze."
Since this is an encyclopedia, you might want to check the spelling of your nomination. The town in Pennsylvania is a borough, not a mountain. :) - Choliamb (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Barely meeting the technical criteria is still meeting the technical criteria, and as a photo I find this both interesting and informative. If it passes, I would use it to link to lunar regolith simulant rather than lunar soil, as I think it's more illustrative of the former rather than the latter. Moonreach (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A tiny number of dust specks in the shadows really don't hold back much. Good quality for colour film of the era (I've seen better indoor shots with colour film of the era, but outdoor shots with moving objects?). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic and interesting shot with solid EV. It would be good though if more details could be added to the caption here and at Commons, though the NASA caption is rather sparce. In particular, it appears that the B-52 is probably the aircraft that dropped the HL-10 for its flight (note the equipment under its right wing). Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey, I was offline for a ~week, and had no chance to response. the photo was switched during the nomination with a larger version File:HL-10 on Lakebed with B-52 flyby - GPN-2000-000201.jpg. though it is indeed larger, its quality is worse, and it's full of jpeg artifacts. I restored the nominated photo in the articles, and given 8 supports I think it can be promoted. Artem.G (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Armbrust, it might be good to revisit the timeline of this nomination and reconsider it's closure. The image was switched Here after the nom had 6 supports and zero opposition. There was consensus for it becoming FP prior to it being replaced in the article. The image was replaced with a technically subpar image and the replacement went unnoticed. If the closure was delayed a few days and the nominator had been notified, the nominator would have caught up with it (as they did on August 2nd [11]). If it's possible, you may want to reconsider the closure. Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: That's the edge of a, like, column or pillar? It's definitely a real object. You can see it better in a different image (sadly unavailable at a decent size) from the photographic session - I'm going to call that the "NYPL" image, for convenience. We could crop it: some of the publication uses crop or edit it out - [12] for example, which is the thumbnail for [13] is a half-tone print that crops rather harshly on the right. Likewise, there's a very harsh crop at [14], [15] - which I'd guess are photogravures or something else that degrades the image, because they're definitely worse quality than the photographic print I restored. I think they're the same image, but given I can barely tell the NYPL is different (look at the thumb and lack of wool on the table), I don't want to discount there being a third image that they were based on. Other copies like the Emily Dickenson Museum one appear to be a copy of the half-tone print from the LOC.
There may (have been?) other images in that session. I think it's a drawing, but [16] looks a lot like the images from this session, but with a hand pose that blocks her face. It's definitely a drawing in File:Helen Hunt Jackson (The Magazine of Poetry and Literary Review, 1893).png and [17]. If that is based on a photo - and I can't see why you'd move the hand to block view of the face - the hand position likely blocks it from consideration, quirky though it may be. Meanwhile [18] - while composited - may indicate the existence of a standing photo of her. Possibly the same as this, but I'm starting to lose track of all these images.[19] has some thumbnails, including a few of a very young Jackson. All very small.
We're nearing the end. Abandoning Conly to see what's out there, we can immediately abandon the goblin-faced terrible artwork in "A Short History of England's and America's Literature". There's another mediocre sketch on the Library of Congress.
Finally, there's this from the Huntington, probably the best of the non-Conly photos that's available at a decent size. [20] is similar. This book has a lovely image of her, but I don't know where they got it from.
Just to note, [21] does have the book cover image; probably cropped. Tineye indicates it was on JSTOR at some point? Honestly, if somone has the book, it'd probably be easier to check the photograph credit. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.01:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2024 at 20:03:53 (UTC)
Reason
High resolution upload of a famous painting; target article is FA. I confess I'm not an expert on color grading but this version appears to be superior to the other ones I found in a quick Google Image search. I can't tell if the faint color-banding in the lower left is an aspect of the canvas or a fault in the reproduction.
Oppose - Crushed blacks, overly contrasty shadows. Strange horizontal lines. Is this really the best version available? --Janke | Talk11:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The painting is 23.4 feet wide, so at 5,872 × 4,008 pixels, the scan resolution is 21 pixels per inch. That's low. For a painting, fine details are lost at that resolution. I say 40+ pixels per inch can be Ok. Bammesk (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to accept that very large paintings may have a low dpi because they're very large. However, I expect better than "Unknown source" for an image of a painting at FPC. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume because they aren't literally next to each other in reality. I do think it looks almost more like black - well the term's setae, but let's call it fur for ease of understanding - on their abdomen. Which is bad, but I think it's also forgivable. Support.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.10:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those dark areas are shadows, not black fur. This can cause a misconception if you're not familiar with the insect, so it lessens the EV. (You can also see the sharp shadows of the wing edges.) --Janke | Talk07:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Notable photo. Ok quality for an innovative photo in 1957. The file size 731 KB is small, but I doubt a larger file size would make any difference in this case. Bammesk (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]