Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/June-2013

Featured picture tools
Featured pictures (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day (Guidelines) Picture of the day archive (and schedule)
v t e

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2013 at 14:30:14 (UTC)

Reason

An illustration for the Mikado, from the authors' lifetimes, which, while simple, is also highly appealing. Probably one of the best examples of an embossed book cover on Wikipedia, and if I could find an article that actually talked about embossed book covers...

Articles in which this image appears

The Mikado

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Theatre

Creator

Anonymous.

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is a book cover, wouldn't it be nicer to see the whole book (i.e. not have the edges so tightly cropped)? 86.160.83.253 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is literally impossible. The book just fits my scanner, and, unfortunately, photography has a maximum resolution way, way under scanning. Particularly with the only cameras I have. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You couldn't do it in two halves and stitch it together? 86.160.83.253 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's a very hard cover - probably wood boards - and, in stupid-but-almost-ubiquitous design elements, scanners tend to have ridges around the outside. If something doesn't lay reasonably flat, the scan tends to suffer blurriness rather badly, and at 600dpi, it wouldn't take much to look blurry. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although it looks a little dark to me. Cripes Adam, good thing they're increasing maximum file size on Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved potential copyright issue (uploaded locally, to get around a potential work-for-hire question.)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, Adam, I don't think {{PD-UK-anon}} is going to work here. A book cover is legally considered corporate authorship, ascribed to the publisher. The underlying drawing or etching would be work-for-hire. Chick Bowen 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] From work for hire: "In the European Union, even if a Member State provides for the possibility of a legal person to be the original rightholder (such as is possible in the UK), then the duration of protection is in general the same as the copyright term for a personal copyright: i.e., for a literary or artistic work, 70 years from the death of the human author, or in the case of works of joint authorship, 70 years from the death of the last surviving author. If the natural author or authors are not identified, nor become known subsequently, then the copyright term is the same as that for an anonymous or pseudonymous work, i.e. 70 years from publication for a literary or artistic work; or, if the work has not been published in that time, 70 years from creation." - so it works out exactly the same either way. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] In the UK, "Prior to 1 August 1989 though, the copyright in photographs, portraits and engravings (and only those types of work) which were created as a result of a commission were owned by the commissioner and NOT the creator." From UK IPO. Chick Bowen 01:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Just to add: this in indisputably free in the US. Worst-case scenario is it needs to be reuploaded locally, and we have previously allowed such images to be featured. However, I don't think this is merely a technicality: we should be precise about authorship whenever possible. Chick Bowen 01:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] The interior material cites the International Copyright Act; here's the text of that as of 1886: http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/tools/request/showRepresentation.php?id=representation_uk_1886&pagenumber=1_1&imagesize=small Since it doesn't mention work for hire in any way, so far as I see, I'm not sure the concept existed at the time. Are there even commons copyright tags for Anonymous work for hire? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ah, well. Uploaded locally,. which should resolve the issues, since only US copyright matters here on en-wiki. For status on commons, see commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:The_Mikado_Chappell_Vocal_Score_cover.2C_c.1895.jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support, assuming the copyright is cleared up. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be 100% unambiguous now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I see no copyright issue with the local version. Chick Bowen 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vote updated. Thanks fellas. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Chick Bowen 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Was waiting for © to be resolved. Nice work, gorgeous cover. I can't decide if I agree with Crisco 1492; I thought it was a wee bit dark yesterday but now it's fine. Ambient lighting in the room. Anyway, I'm good. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this is an excellent reproduction of the cover of this early copy of a vocal score, I don't think the cover of this early vocal score has strong EV for the article. Is the illustration notable? Is it discussed in the article? Is it artistically wonderful? Does it tell us a lot (or much at all) about the opera? Colin°^Talk 08:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Mikado Chappell Vocal Score cover (c.1895).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2013 at 16:35:07 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev, See Commons [1]

Articles in which this image appears

Dik-dik

FP category for this image

Animals/Mammals

Creator

Yathin sk

• Support as nominator --'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice, high EV. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a straightforward and encyclopedic picture. dllu (t,c) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as well as straightforward there is a positive je ne sais quoi about it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--BNK(talk) 02:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent capture. Rather strange looking head, straight-on. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 11:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Madoqua kirkii - female (Namutoni).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2013 at 00:02:07 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality; has EV in improving the reader's understanding of the subject

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels

FP category for this image

places

Creator

DavidLeighEllis

• Support as nominator --DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Never seen such church interior before. The window looks blown though. Brandmeister^talk 09:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent interior architectural shot. Possibly too much floor an not enough ceiling but good enough for me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a good picture but I think it's EV isn't as high as it needs to be for FP. It is really hard to get an idea of scale from the low viewpoint (which does indeed include a lot of floor). Looking online at other pictures, there are three pews and two aisles (one narrower than the other). I think a different position would give a more useful impression. A picture during a service with a full congregation would also have more EV imo. Colin°^Talk 11:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2013 at 04:03:54 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image with good EV. The only other image on commons was rather obviously taken in captivity with low quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Long-tailed Broadbill, Broadbill

FP category for this image

Psarisomus dalhousiae

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bird FPs are taken to a new level. Brandmeister^talk 09:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--BNK(talk) 02:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 09:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Psarisomus dalhousiae - Kaeng Krachan.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2013 at 04:07:11 (UTC)

Reason

why you think it meets the FPC criteria and should be featured (check criteria first)

Articles in which this image appears

Red-bearded Bee-eater

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's a sort of self-portrait taking place in the pupil. (well, all you can see is the flash) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a superb image with huge EV given that it shows the bird in its natural environment, and with part of its diet. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent EV! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Laitche (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--BNK(talk) 02:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 09:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nyctyornis amictus - Kaeng Krachan.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2013 at 19:02:23 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution 1903 portrait painting of mother and daughter by artist John Singer Sargent. I replaced older versions of this painting with the GAP version on the two Warren articles. Finally, I've seen this painting in real life and I think the colors here are just a bit more pale. Nothing here that strikes me as poorly reproduced, though.

Articles in which this image appears

Gretchen Osgood Warren
Fiske Warren
List of works by John Singer Sargent

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

John Singer Sargent

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 09:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support EV seems a little weak right now. --Pine^✉ 18:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Busy weekend, but I just picked up a book yesterday to up the EV on this. The nom might run out before I get to it, but dat's coo'. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 22:50:11 (UTC)

Reason

A nice birds eye view of Yerevan with a backdrop of Ararat. This is a daily scene of those who live in the city.

Articles in which this image appears

Yerevan, Armenia, Largest cities in Europe, Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Serouj

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An interesting photograph. The foreground is clear but the background has problems. There's a lot of colour noise which makes me suspect it has been lightened. Also, within the article, this image is just one of many. Colin°^Talk 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Super sorry and appreciate the upload. I just want a less smoggy day picture (even if that is how it looked, we can't see...shoot after a rainfall so details of the landscape show.)TCO (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Scrap the nomination please. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2013 at 10:25:22 (UTC)

Reason

EV, the corresponding article is featured.

Articles in which this image appears

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens

FP category for this image

Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

USGS

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 10:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was eying this some time ago and wanted to nominate it, but I forget why I didn't. Solid, unique historical image, high resolution. I don't mind the digital manipulation used here (seems to have been a bit of levels and some brown/sepia toning). A little grainy but considering the subject I think that's understandable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Honestly, I'm not entirely happy with this, given the existence of colour photos such as File:MSH80_st_helens_eruption_plume_07-22-80.jpg, as well as at least one more dramatic black and white on the USGS gallery linked, I'm not sure why this image gets the lead spot. There's a whole set of possible images we could use; this one doesn't seem as good as at least a few other options. This also has a few other problems: It has a tight crop, which lowers EV by removing any sense of scale, sepia toned is rather historically inappropriate for a 1980 photo, and perhaps most worrying, the credit line is "Austin Post, scanned photograph by USGS, cleaned by and adjusted by carol" - are we even sure we can use this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is Austin Post, who worked for the USGS. Chick Bowen 18:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added alt which is also in the article (among the worthiest in USGS series in my view). Brandmeister^talk 21:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both images seem really soft. Is this a product of scanning or something? I almost prefer the alt, but even then, I think whoever edited the "atmospheric overlay" really darkened that foreground. It should be possible to remove haze (light cyan) without killing all the detail. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry. Crop too tight.TCO (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2013 at 02:28:17 (UTC)

Reason

I honestly think it's a great shot. The statue is of David of Sasun, an Armenian epic hero. It was made in 1959 by Yervand Kochar. This statue is widely admired by Armenians. It has been pictured the logo [2] of Armenfilm, Armenia's main studio, even during the Soviet period [3], which is kind of unusual, because the Soviet regime didn't quite encourage nationalism among the minorities. The building on the background is the Yerevan train station.

Articles in which this image appears

David of Sasun

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Nina Stössinger

• Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It's nice, but for the EV I'd prefer something that focuses on the statue itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose image is not used in stated article. It also poorly illustrates the subject, seeing as it is out of focus. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Per Crisco. Appreciate your work to upload the photo.TCO (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2013 at 07:51:56 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Hotel Astoria (Saint Petersburg)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Florstein

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice image. BNK(talk) 02:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 18:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Great shot, but not well displayed in article. Infobox confines it...prefer a centered panorama.TCO (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Astoria Hotel SPB.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2013 at 07:57:53 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good lighting, good qaulity

Articles in which this image appears

Greenwich foot tunnel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Heuschrecke

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support the composition is quite good and provides context for the photo (with the river behind it). It depicts clearly the structure in typical British weather. However, the blurry seagull in mid flight is quite annoying. dllu (t,c) 19:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose due to the blurry seagull and blurry people in the entrance. The dome is nice and sharp, but there are other areas of the image that are a tad bit too soft. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support because this could be done better; it's a very photogenic building (inside and out) and I'd encourage our London photographers to head down there and see what they can do. Chick Bowen 01:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Challenge accepted... Not sure what you'd like to have improved over this version though; the composition isn't bad and detail is reasonably good... Even the clouds are dramatic, albeit overcast. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, a little unsharp, a little dark/low-contrast and brighter in background than foreground, weird-looking person in lavender coat right in front of the entrance who looks like she has something covering or in front of her head, motion-blurred seagull: a lot of small things that add up to, could be better. But I look forward to seeing what you can do with it! Chick Bowen 01:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I had a go today. I couldn't really replicate the shot as the foreground of the original was fenced off with temporary barriers for no particular reason, so I had to get closer and more to the left to avoid it being in the foreground, as a result, Canary Wharf is much smaller (but this is possibly a good thing if you want to minimise the impact of it). I also didn't get the best lighting as it was a bit late in the afternoon so the doorway was in shadow. Still, it was a nice sunny day, so there's that. :) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Gentle oppose of original, neutral on new one. based on use as an illustration of the subject. It's a pretty photo and appreciate your work to snap it. But it seems mostly like a skyline and not at all clearly a tunnel. Looking at the article, I much prefer the images within the tunnel (a diagram would also be nice). Even as a photo of the entrance, I prefer the other photo in article, that is more tightly cropped on just the same southern entrance beehive.TCO (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the composition of the new one better (good job, man) although the tight one in article is nice too. Article is missing a pic of the north dome (we have three pics of the south one, now).TCO (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2013 at 03:43:02 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution with good EV for both Brazilian artistic gymnast Jade Barbosa and a turn (maneuver) during a floor routine. Visually simple photograph, but eye-catching and interesting angle (relative to most gymnastics photos with crowds behind them). I replaced previous versions of the photograph where she's a bit darker.

Articles in which this image appears

Jade Barbosa
Floor (gymnastics)
Turn (dance and gymnastics)
Glossary of gymnastics terms
Events at the 2007 Pan American Games (newly added)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Wilson Dias (photographer); Keraunoscopia (derivative)

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Seems to me the EV is too spread out, if you will. It is OK at portraying Jade Barbosa, but not as well as the current lead image in her article. OK at showing a gymnastics floor, but not great since you do not see the whole thing. Not really good at showing the turn, since it is at the beginning and she is not actually turning. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent analysis. I was thinking about this photograph for some time. Figured I'd throw it out here anyway. Much appreciated for honest feedback! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak oppose. I really want more gymnast photos (they are female friendly) and this is a world notable athlete (not some para athlete or the like). It's even better than another one we promoted a year or two ago. That said, doesn't quite meet top rank in terms of composition. The crop, the downward angle. Not quite an action short. On that article, the beam lead looks better. I can pull up galleries from photogs at meets that have many more good looking ones. It's a good thing to have and really advances us...just not quite there yet. I still think we could put a Wiki photog at a major meet like Pac Rim or the like and get a bunch of FPs that way.TCO (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 30 or so FP sports images, only three of them are female. I grew up in a gymnastics family, so I naturally lean this way. One photographer I work with is one of the better gymnastics photographers, but he refuses point-blank (and I respect his decision 100%) to release images large enough for FP status, but I'd rather have his images on gymnast articles than not at all, so I'm not complaining. I keep my eyes open though. And a female skiier who recently died had an important and excellent photograph of her (visible face, ski gear) but the photographer couldn't appropriate permission from the event people. I won't upload the image under "fair use" because I don't burn bridges :P Anyway, yes, I've been working on trying to get more female FP images, but I'm relatively new here and have only begun on my quest. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you won't get the SI photogs to release anything. And I quite get their point. But gym, especially has a lot of Internet following (blogs and such with official press passes). It would not be hard to get training or even competition shots from a minor meet (of world class athletes). We can just use one of our volunteers and get a press pass. Seriously...it is very doable.TCO (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a size snob (or a license or technical details snob). I see our mission as illustrating THIS project's articles. What I care about is composition and EV. See this gallery for some nice snaps: [4]. Do WE have a gallery like that?  :-( TCO (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that our images are free, which probably limits our selection greatly. One photographer just wrote me yesterday on a whim, wondering why Wikipedia can't use non-commercial images. I wish. He wishes, too. But we should be grateful for what we can get. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally insane and (pardon the expression) Freetard that we don't allow NC images here. There are a huge number of images out there that are NC and we desperately need better illustration. It is a major quality gap. Who cares if Wikia or some other dotcom can't make money off the NC images. And anyhow, any decent book publisher checks images before reprint and we allow limited fair use. But it is so, so, so conservative and ingrained here that no one will listen. It would make their heads explode to even consider it. But what I care about is the reader, reader, reader. And the bird in the hand versus the one in the bush. so making good ARTICLES is way more important to me than trying to have some bank of Free stuff and put Getty out of business. P.s. I assume, you are cool with the chitchat...I don't want to screw over your nomination and will cut or stop any of this if you don't want it.TCO (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2013 at 05:53:36 (UTC)

Reason

Important painting and high quality scan

Articles in which this image appears

Cliff Dwellers (painting), George Bellows

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

George Bellows

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good photo-wise and great painting. Could be even stronger if the stub went into detail of the different parts of the painting (which is very busy with figures) to explain it more.TCO (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question good scan but the article lacks refs. How notable is this work? --Pine^✉ 07:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • GIYF (kidding). Pageviews is 383, not great but individual artworks have this...that said, this is not the Mona Lisa. Bellows was one of 5 painters notable for being part of the Ash Can School (a modern art trend). His page views is 9145 (well above my thumb rule of 3000 equating to half-likelihood of heard of it). This is one of his most famous paintings (perhaps Jack Dempsey getting knocked out is more famous). Barrons prep for AP US History, lists this painting getting done as one of the notable events of 1913. Google Search came up with sources for article; will add some. One of the arty people could tell you more.TCO (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support then. --Pine^✉ 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the iconic Dempsey painting.TCO (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2013 at 06:06:23 (UTC)

Reason

Good clarity and high EV. Good composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Nallur Kandaswamy temple, Arumuka Navalar, Jaffna, Jaffna kingdom, Murugan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Gane Kumaraswamy on Flickr

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 06:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose image does a good job of showing the entrance, but does not portray the entire building, reducing its EV in the current uses. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You are true to some extent, but what I found interesting was the unusual color of the gopura (which are white or yellowish white in color in most South Indian temples) and design patterns and colors on the pillars, which I think add significantly to the article.--BNK(talk) 08:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. OK. TCO (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - there's plenty of room for two images, one of which focusses on a particular part of the building, to both have enough EV. I think it's very useful as it stands. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose good EV but this lacks sharpness on the right side, and it would be nice if there wasn't a person in the frame. I don't think this is quite good enough for FP. --Pine^✉ 06:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2013 at 07:58:35 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laitche (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

High quality image.

Articles in which this image appears

Hybrid tea rose

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator --Laitche (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support has good EV. No obvious flaws. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 1, much better! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added an alt, reducing the blown out reds. Roses are a great reason to dive into Photoshop's Lab color mode. It's clear the rose is oversaturated in the original photograph, but when you re-visit the photograph in Photoshop, you will also see how nearly blown out the 'a' channel is. Using the 'a' channel as a mask, you can reduce the red in both the flower and surrounding "atmosphere". Anyway, there we go, a rose with visible detail. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ✿ --Laitche (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 1 Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The color in edit 1 seems far more unnatural than the original, whose deep color seems to me to be more a result of the ambient lighting than overcorrection in post. Actually, I'm not a fan of the image in general. The composition leaves much to be desired (arbitrarily placed semi-in-focus leaf at the top-right, awkward central position of the subject, lack of lead room, inorganic-looking things on the ground). I won't get in the way and oppose, but those are my thoughts. Juliancolton (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I did leave a message on Laitche's talk page regarding redoing his image from the source file. In addition, he knows what the flower actually looks like (color-wise), while all I did was to bring down saturation. Further color correction may even be required. I've abstained from voting myself as I'm not sure what constitutes featured status for flowers. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be that depends on a monitor, in my monitor the original looks better. Thanks Juliancolton ✿ --Laitche (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That inorganic thing is for Irrigation sprinkler :) --Laitche (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest those seeing the original picture as oversaturated are perhaps using a wide-gamut monitor and viewing the picture on their browser (which typically doesn't try converting the sRGB jpg to your monitor's wider-gamut colourspace) or have Photoshop or their OS set up incorrectly. The first picture looks fine (though I'm not really going wow enough to support). The second picture is more orangy/brown and the foliage more green/yellow like the change from overcast to when the sun comes out. Some browsers can be set to be colourspace-aware but in my experience this just causes colour-banding as they aren't as clever as Photoshop/Lightroom (they just do nearest-colour rather than dither). I find it best to leave the browser ignorant of colourspace and change my monitor setting to sRGB when viewing photos on the web. For image editing, I set the monitor to AdobeRGB (which is the profile my OS is set to know about) and use Photoshop/Lightroom. Also I strongly discourage playing about with colours with someone's JPG. JPGs are like baked cookies and it is too late to change the recipie! You need to go back to the raw file or a 16-bit TIFF in order to manipulate colours properly. I don't think the original rose has blown colours at all, and you wouldn't be able to rescue them from a JPG if it did. Colin°^Talk 12:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already have tried from the RAW again but I missed something (^^; Here. If I have time to retry I will. Thanks Colin ✿ --Laitche (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I don't have a monitor that can display AdobeRGB so my camera's RAW setting is sRGB. --Laitche (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think there's much wrong with the colours. You can play with the brightness to taste really. Btw, your camera's raw has no colourspace. It needs interpreted into a colourspace by the raw converter. The AdobeRGB/sRGB setting on your camera is for the JPGs it produces (which may actually be embedded in your raw file as a preview image). You only need to choose a colourspace when exporting as a JPG or TIFF, and sRGB is perfect for the web. In some ways, be grateful you don't have a wide gamut monitor. They can be a hassle. Colin°^Talk 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My camera (Canon EOS-1D Mark III) can set AdobeRGB RAW mode but I can't see AdobeRGB in my monitor so now setting sRGB RAW mode. When I buy a wide gamut monitor, will camera set AdobeRGB RAW mode. I may be hassled :) --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, raw files have no colourspace. I've been unable to find anything that suggests Canon is different, though plenty to suggest camera menus can be misleadingly labelled. The colour profile setting will influence the preview JPG that can be embedded in a raw file and any JPG you save alongside the raw file (if that option is chosen) and may be a hint to Canon's raw converter software on your PC. But there's nothing in the raw file that limits or fixes the colourspace. A raw file contains more colours than either sRGB or AdobeRGB and needs a fair bit of work done to it before one can really talk about "colours" anyway. Colin°^Talk 19:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had misunderstood about my camera, they have sRGB mode and AdobeRGB mode but that is not about RAW, I think. I got my camera two or three weeks ago (used one), so don't understand about that particularly, heheh :) --Laitche (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I didn't realize, Yes RAW have no colourspace as you are saying. --Laitche (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Confused. What color is it really? The first pic looks most natural (and attractive). It's OK, I guess. Probably would have supported if not for the confusion.TCO (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original has most really natural color, I think ✿ --Laitche (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe I'm wrong about the oversaturation in the first picture? I've photographed very red roses before and I always thought that color just came off really strong. It's not oversaturated in the sense that I can't see any details anymore. My alt is definitely leaning toward orange, and I wasn't trying to make a point regarding color (in fact, I say that only Laitche would know the true color of the rose). I tried some color management tests online with two browsers, FireFox and Safari, and I seem to pass the tests, but honestly, if my calibration is slightly off, I wouldn't even know about it. My dad owns a ColorMonkey thingy, maybe I should try that someday. Anyway, back on topic, the new alt 2 seems to be an even deeper red. Hopefully I'm seeing that correctly. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2013 at 18:55:22 (UTC)

Reason

Important chromolithograph with high EV. the unrestored image in the article was replaced with this one.

Articles in which this image appears

Battle of Franklin

FP category for this image

Artworks

Creator

Kurz and Allison, edited by Mmxx

• Support as nominator -- ■ MMXX ^talk 18:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears the work was done from the TIFF file, which, after cropping, unfortunately doesn't meet the size requirements. You also replaced a previous version of the same image (you should mention this in your reason above). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the old image is replaced with better restoration of the same file (compare), I didn't think it's necessary to mention it here or wait for 7 days before nominating, anyway, this comment should be enough to inform other users. I've also overwrote this file with a high resolution version.  ■ MMXX ^talk 19:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should've been clearer. I meant that you should've mentioned (in the original reason) that you replaced a previously stable version with a better quality version; this way people know the image is technically already stable. It's mentioned in the criteria. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.  ■ MMXX ^talk 16:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Image looks good and well illustrates that the Confederates were charging up at the Yankees.TCO (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose, sorry: The colours are over-saturated, and the crop should not have removed the text which is an inherent part of these sort of lithographs. While I can understand why you made those decisions - and Kurz and Allison are particularly difficult lithographers to do well, due to the limited colour palettes - it's just too far from the original artistic intent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. actually this version didn't need much restoration, I only adjusted the levels by sampling the whites and blacks. the image is not saturated, but I'm not sure if colors are correct or not, you can also compare it with this version. about the crop, I noticed that you didn't remove the border in this FP, but IMO the text doesn't adds much to its EV and image looks better without the border in the article.  ■ MMXX ^talk 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an article writer, I often prefer writing or captions or the like from originals cropped out. It becomes crufty if we have our own caption along with one in image. And remember the writer is using the image to illustrate his topic, not really planning on users clicking and making the image bigger and all that. (This is different if the article is actually about the artwork though.)TCO (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it, by definition, ceases being one of the best images on Wikipedia once you change it too much. This is a lithograph, not a painting, and lithographs have a different aesthetic that should not be turned into a painting aesthetic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2013 at 23:23:24 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, solid resolution, featured at Commons. Earlier nomination used a different version which was scanned from a book, but this one seems to be directly from a photograph or negative.

Articles in which this image appears

Charles Baudelaire, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Étienne Carjat

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Perfect candidate. Possibly our first FP of a western philosopher? J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow, agreed with J Milburn. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I thought about nominating this before--I think I just forgot. Well done, conservative edit. To Milburn: in the philosopher-to-poet ratio, I think Schiller has the edge on Baudelaire; I'd also consider Douglass a philosopher (though I prefer this picture to our current FP). Chick Bowen 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Plutonium27 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Surprised it hasn't been nominated before. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although it suffers slightly from placement in the infobox.TCO (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Étienne Carjat, Portrait of Charles Baudelaire, circa 1862.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2013 at 11:32:02 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, high resolution image of an actress for whom it has obvious EV. It reminds me of the portrait of Mark Harmon we currently have featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Julie Delpy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Fabrice Lévêque

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although it deserves a color shot. Brandmeister^talk 13:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Three years stable. A bit soft and grainy, but very eye-catching. I'm not sure what more EV can be added: she has red lips and is fair skinned. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too stylized for an encyclopedia article, IMO. A color photo with less dramatic lighting would be preferable. Kaldari (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pic and to me it has enough EV. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a little soft but ok given the year of the photo. --Pine^✉ 18:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Basically per Kaldari. It's a little too bedroom and too posed glamor shot for how it is placed as the lead image of her biography.TCO (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This pose is not unusual for studio photography of an actress or singer. I see your point that it's posed and a glamor shot but in this case I think that's acceptable, although I might not use it as the lead image for the article. --Pine^✉ 23:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Julie Delpy 1991 -a.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a 75% support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2013 at 12:21:51 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality scan of a notable subject

Articles in which this image appears

Terry-Thomas, Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Employees of the ABC television network; scanned and cleaned up by SchroCat

• Support as nominator --SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The shadows are quite harsh. Are they the same in the original? Otherwise this looks very good, although it has somewhat lower EV than the recently closed nomination as he's not holding his long pipe or showing the gap in his teeth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty much. The original image shows the big shadows cast - it looks like it was done with fairly heavy lighting, which is unsurprising. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay... weak support as I'm still not quite thrilled with the lighting. Otherwise looks quite good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- despite the closed mouth which is a bit of a shame. However, it is a good clear picture with plenty of EV. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pose fits subject well. Iconic.TCO (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 08:16:47 (UTC)

Reason

It's a high resolution, well composed and exposed photo of a Common Raven. The Raven is very dark bird and detail is visible in all the important areas.

Articles in which this image appears

Common Raven

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent image. Kaldari (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 16:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 18:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Yes, it has great features, but you can't see ANY of them at the size displayed in article. Advise to widen that image. (And I think how it is used, where posted, how many articles, etc. is relevant...Wiki FP different than Commons.) Also, we don't seem to be complying with Dave Ilif's requirement that we attribute him prominently near the photo. ;-) TCO (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, an infobox is the ideal location for a 'lead image' like this, and it's not really possible to increase the width of the image without affecting the infobox width. I guess I could crop the left side of the frame slightly which would have the knock-on effect of 'zooming in' on the raven. In any case, I agree that image width in articles is an issue, but if you're really interested in seeing detail, you'll probably click the image. What I'd really like to see is some sort of code that when clicking a thumbnail, instead of opening the image page, would display the the image full screen as a 'pop-up' in front of the article, with a link below the image pointing to the image page. I suspect there'd be opposition to that due to interoperability (mobile browsers, etc). But hey, I can dream. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The width of thumbnails is an accessibility/cross-platform issue, and I'm not sure this complaint is particular to this bird photo vs every other bird photo we have. Where you do stop in terms of how big to make it? With maps and diagrams, it has to be big enough to read the legends and annotations, but photographs there's no hard line. The point of not hard-coding 200px or whatever is that the standard for thumbnail size will evolve and be different for different users or platforms. Colin°^Talk 10:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is discussion (on wikitech-l) of making images open in modal viewers when you click them instead of taking you directly to the image page (similar to what was recently done for videos), so that might make the thumbnail resolution issue moot in the future (as well as the issue of lacking attribution within the article). Kaldari (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Ahh, glad to hear of progress on that. Given the sometimes slow response, particularly where images are concerned, from Wikimedia's web servers though, I don't know how quickly the images would appear. It obviously wouldn't be practical to pre-load all images, but waiting 10+ seconds for the image to begin loading in the modal window would be frustrating. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Corvus corax (Common Raven), Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 08:26:04 (UTC)

Reason

There is an existing FP of this marmot, and while it probably wins on cuteness, I don't think it's the most encyclopaedic image as the pose is rather unconventional, and the detail is not particularly good. So there is a case for a 'delist-and-replace' here, but given the discussion on the talk page, I'll nominate this one on its own for now.

Articles in which this image appears

Marmot, Yellow-bellied marmot Yosemite National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Laitche (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support (because of the other picture).TCO (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Marmota flaviventris (Yellow Bellied Marmot), Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 09:02:31 (UTC)

Reason

Ticks many of the boxes... dramatic landscape, pleasing aesthetics, and high resolution. Shows Half Dome in both an interesting and encyclopaedically valuable way. The clouds in the background are Lenticular clouds, common to the Sierra Nevada.

Articles in which this image appears

Half Dome and Yosemite National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Laitche (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support dllu (t,c) 23:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. OK. TCO (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Like the dynamic between the lenticular clouds and the craggy rocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 16:47:26 (UTC)

Reason

Very nice picture with good EV and of high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Black-backed jackal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Yathin sk

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning, nice find. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 16:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Love the pose.TCO (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Cowtowner (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent pose indeed. --ELEKHH^T 09:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:2012-bb-jackal-1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 22:56:59 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, high quality image of a unique plane in-flight. It is also irreplaceable as the plane is currently sitting in the Boneyard.

Articles in which this image appears

Boeing YAL-1, +6

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Missile Defence Agency

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What are the specks of white stuff in the bottom half of the picture? Other than that, I'm inclined to support since it is sharp and well-composed and depicts a fascinating aircraft. dllu (t,c) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't say for sure, but I'd be inclined to go with whitecaps on the water. My reasoning for this being that they don't show up in the sky or seem to affect the aircraft like dust or noise might. Cowtowner (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds plausible. Support dllu (t,c) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Colin°^Talk 16:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (Support) for EV. The article is about the weapons system, mostly about the laser not the plane. I would prefer a photo or diagram that shows more the detail of the laser. In this photo, you mostly just see the aircraft in flight, rather than the details of the laser that actually shoots down the missiles. Nothing against the uploader and really appreciate your work.TCO (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good reason to have a separate FPC of such a diagram for the laser, but I think that this photo of the laser integrated into the plane is ok also. --Pine^✉ 19:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool. We can agree to disagree. I read the attached article and thought about the content and how to best transmit extra info graphically to the readers.TCO (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an image that shows the turret assembly up close in the article. The plane is an integral part of the weapons system (it is, after all, an airborne laser). It was never meant to be operated independently from the aircraft or from the ground. It doesn't make a lot of sense to oppose it because it shows the whole assembly doing what is was designed to do. Cowtowner (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, the vast majority of the text is about the laser. Showing a plane in flight at that scale is not so helpful for illustrating the topic. Yeah sure it's an integrated system, but would a picture of an F-14 in flight be the best image for Phoenix missile system if it had some special radar or the like on the plane? It's a judgment call, but an honest take coming from the reader perspective, not photographer. The plane in the sky just overwhelms the object of real interest which is tiny within that shot.TCO (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A missile can be easily detached from an aircraft, but this laser is deeply integrated into this aircraft. I don't think you can find a photo of a cutaway view of this aircraft with the parts of the laser inside easily visible although you might find a computer rendering of one, but that could be a separate FP. None of this has a negative effect on the EV of this photo. --Pine^✉ 22:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most unique thing about this laser is that it is airborne. The delivery mechanism of any weapon is just as important as the weapon itself. To say that this photo lacks EV is like saying that a picture of a complete Self-propelled artillery lacks EV because it doesn't focus on the gun itself, but rather the entire vehicle. Even the title of the article, Boeing YAL-1, refers to the entire aircraft and not just the laser. That said, I agree with Pine that, should we come across a high quality photo of the laser turret itself, it would be good to have a second FP of that. dllu (t,c) 04:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of degree. I think I know plenty about weapons systems and platforms and not just from Wiki (movies, yeah...movies). I read about that weapons system and I consumed the article as a READER. The heart of it is the laser, not the plane (which could be different anyway). Similarly to how the Aegis system is mostly about the Spy-1 phased array that you see all flat and all and not the entire Ticonderoga cruiser. Let the vote stand, peeps. You're just repeating yourselves now.TCO (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're repeating ourselves because this has become inane. This is not a matter degree, but of fact. You are simply wrong in your assessment. The most basic evidence of this is the fact that the aircraft and laser are referenced as a unit throughout the whole of the article as the ABL. Apply the criteria correctly. Cowtowner (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read it and you are right about the emphasis of the article.TCO (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer alt 1 a Commons editor just created this alt and I like the crop better. Note, this isn't a new support vote since I voted above and would also support the original but I prefer the alt. --Pine^✉ 06:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the original; I like having a bit of breathing space around the aircraft. I think losing the clouds at the top in particular makes it feel somewhat cramped and takes away from the in-the-air quality of picture. Cowtowner (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer crop: for my old objection to another FP of a plane flying around in the air. This is a weapon system article.TCO (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not reopening this, but the plane is the weapons system. I don't see how the crop changes anything they're both images of a plane in the air... (I'm not trying to disagree with you here, I just don't see the point you're making.) Cowtowner (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:YAL-1A Airborne Laser unstowed crop.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2013 at 06:00:04 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and high EV for Springbok

Articles in which this image appears

Springbok

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Yathin sk

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 06:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. As long as there are no other FPs of sprinkboks.TCO (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (update: support set, not individual pic) The usage in article is as a set. I think it would be counterproductive to have them as separate FPs in terms of searching and be a case of two near-identical FPs on same topic given the sex differences are so small in picture (just a little wiener that you don't even notice at first.)TCO (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, there is no FP of adult springboks. Besides, many images are of size less than 1000 pixels in the article.--BNK(talk) 07:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I think this would have been a good case for a set with the image of the male which is comparable in every regard. I suppose it could be nominated on its own should this pass. Also, a brief look through the gallery seems to turn up no other springboks, just a whole lot of impalas. Cowtowner (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminds me of that song about in the back of my Impala. ;-) (I think a set nom would be great, will add it here.)TCO (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought of nominating the male as well, but decided against it and instead nominated the female picture. I am not sure I can nominate the male and female pics as a set now.--BNK(talk) 07:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience, it's probably best to just wait and have another nomination later. If other editors feel differently and develop a consensus towards promoting them both, however, you could but me down as a support. Cowtowner (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support male The female photo seems to have a diagonal bright/dark appearance about it that bothers me ever so slightly. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set good technical quality, and the symmetry between the male and female is nice. Notice that the male image appears to be the template of the three SVG images that differentiate three kinds of colour schemes, which, in my opinion, serves to increase the value of the male image since we can see how the colouration in the diagrams maps to real-life colours. dllu (t,c) 03:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. In best case the female has 2 supports, the male 3 and the set 4. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2013 at 07:58:36 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Imperial Academy of Arts

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Florstein

• Support as nominator --Florstein (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really cool how it has that waterfront. Looks good to me.TCO (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose. Though the image is very good, it has sharpness issues when zoomed. Sorry--BNK(talk) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support minor softness and very slight perspective issues (on the outside). Otherwise strong. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2013 at 08:03:45 (UTC)

Reason

Intense Tropical Storms like Gonu are rare in the Arabian Sea, and this image shows a perfect symmetry of the storm with an eye showing the underlying ocean mass, a few aspects you would never expect in a storm formed over the North Indian Ocean basin. Plus, the most important image in the featured article Cyclone Gonu.

Articles in which this image appears

Cyclone Gonu, Tropical cyclones in the Arabian sea

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

Good kitty

• Support as nominator --Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great centering, the eye of the storm is remarkably detailed and has been extremely well focused, clearly PD, image description is helpful, used in the FA's infobox (can't imagine a more useful place) and definitely has high EV there, massive size (6000x7800 pixels) that's far past our size minimum, and I don't see any additional problems (e.g. dust) with the image itself. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I just honestly think we have a lot of too-similar space-shot of hurricane images. And not so sure that the illustration of individual storm articles (as opposed to overall hurricane article) is so important. It is a nice image and an important storm though (maybe not Katrina/Andrew notable though). Think we would add more with diagrams (storm tracks), action shots, damage shots, etc. Also, unlike a species picture, it is pretty hard to tell one storm pic from a different storm pic (if in same region). Sorry...I am just explaining the contrarian view..TCO (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want this to seem pointed (like I think you said on another nom, I appreciate your work and the fact that these discussions happen) but the same argument could be made for species (has been made) or cars, camera lenses or people. While images of storms may look similar they are in no way interchangeable--each storm is a unique and discreet phenomenon. There's really no better way to illustrate what the storm looked like and where it was at the time. Picking and choosing certain storms (Katrina and Andrew, without getting into the Western-centric nature of that) isn't part of the criteria. The fact that we have an article for the storm (and a featured one at that) by default gives it sufficient EV. Similarly, no one would make the case that we should stop writing articles about the storms because "there's a lot of them". If it's a question of an overwhelming amount of hurricanes (or birds, politicians, mushrooms, what have you) appearing on the frontpage then that's an issue to be dealt with at Today's FP. A possible solution would be a point system like the one used at FA, but again that's a discussion for another place, though one certainly worth having. The solution isn't trying to curate the gallery at this phase by excluding images for reasons outside of the criteria. As a final, rather minor point, featuring a satellite image of the storm doesn't preclude us from showing other images of it at ground level or the destruction it caused. Diagrams such as storm tracks aren't generally considered featureable because they amount to stock images with minor alterations (for similar reasons we don't feature flags or the base map images that we often see in infoboxes) Cowtowner (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree that a monoculture of storm images on the front page would be boring and hugely undesirable; that's why there's a separate project to curate what goes on there (normally howcheng is in charge of that aspect of it. But we operate on our own criteria here, and what your evaluation is based on isn't in them. I'll reiterate my point briefly using the birds as a comparison: the storms are actually different (we can't change one for the other) and while they make look indistinguishable to the layman to the trained eye they are different. To make a parallel case, these albatross [[5]] [[6]] look basically the same to me but are in fact different species. Whether we want both of them to appear on the MP is one thing, but they are different species and have independent EV of one another. We can't say that because we have featured one albatross we have feature them all. We should be judging images in relation to the criteria, not the existing content of the gallery. I agree with the basics of the point you're making, but that's not how the project is or should be run. Cowtowner (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And, at this point, I suppose it only makes sense for me to support this. Cowtowner (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 05:22:24 (UTC)

Reason

A rare photograph. Great quality. Shows the Church in dramatic detail snuggled in the middle of the city of Tbilisi and beside the Kura River.

Articles in which this image appears

Armenian Cathedral of Tbilisi

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Hovik95

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm sympathetic to historical images, but this one just seems not a very good picture. Maybe there is a painting that better illustrates the old church?TCO (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 06:07:48 (UTC)

Reason

A beautiful colored rendition of a photograph taken around 1910 of an Armenian woman in traditional attire. High EV. Good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Armenians, Armenian women, Artvin province

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Uploader: Proudbolsahye Photographer: Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either version. Pretty cool, old color photo. Read the Boston.com article for some more on the photographer.TCO (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting photograph. Great EV. --Chauahuasachca (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose original I'm sorry, I can't. I get the impression this was taken from the source and enlarged to 1500, which made the image even softer. There is a link in the source article to the LOC TIFF file, which is much larger in resolution and would satisfy the criteria better, imho. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the full image as an alt. I attempted to remove the CMY(k) colors from the edges and obvious color spots throughout. Shifts in the color for the rest of the image were not touched as this was not an attempt to recreate the actual photograph. I did not mess with contrast or sharpness. The image description page will be updated momentarily (in case someone sees it before I get done with it). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt 1 Image description page updated. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out the three negatives are available to download and can be pasted into the R, G, and B channels respectively. pretty cool. Alt 1 already had the work done for me, but anyone else is free to give it a whirl if they'd like (I'm downloading it now to try it anyway). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 1, oppose original. Thanks for putting in the leg work Keraunoscopia. Cowtowner (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Creator field is not filled in correctly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As nominator, I'm fine with ALT1 as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Armenian woman in national costume (crop).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt 1 is unopposed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 09:18:05 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, gives us a good look at this painter.

Articles in which this image appears

Raden Saleh, Friedrich Carl Albert Schreuel, +1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Credited to Friedrich Carl Albert Schreuel (1773-1853)

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good to me. (small comment: could please make a stub on the painter? There is some info on him in German that you can Google.)TCO (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Archipel has some discussion of this painting too, in the context of one of Saleh's works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Who is this mysterious Friedrich Carl Albert Schreuel?? I Google it for images and basically get the current Feature Picture Candidates lineup. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Keraunoscopia and TCO, it's not much but we have a stub for him now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cripes this guy is obscure" is right! Bravo in finding information on him, a neat little article. Thanks for doing the research! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mega credit for stepping up to the plate. Yes, he's obscure, but I like your can do spirit.TCO (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I was on the fence about this for quite some time, but I'll come out and support this. Cheers to all of you making the project work well here. Cowtowner (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 18:36:39 (UTC)

Reason

Featured picture on Commons, an alt version of File:ISS-34_Stratocumulus_clouds.jpg

Articles in which this image appears

Stratocumulus cloud and Earth

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back

Creator

Original by NASA ISS Expedition 34, edited by Julian Herzog

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 18:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It's a gorgeous pic, but I'm a little torn on how it functions as an illustration (is it a weather shot or a space shot, how much insight comes from it).TCO (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's both a weather shot and a space shot, and I think seeing how the clouds appear from space especially over such a large area has good EV. --Pine^✉ 19:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why wasn't the original replaced in the articles? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is just an alt and the common practice when we have a nomination for an original and an alt is to keep the original until the nom passes and then if the alt is more popular the closer replaces the original with the alt in the article, I didn't replace the originals in the articles. If someone thinks this is a problem for this nom then I'll do it myself while this nom is happening. --Pine^✉ 05:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine. But criterion #5 does say the image needs to be in use: "The image is used in one or more articles.[2] It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though [the 7 day wait] may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image". I've already seen where FP images aren't recognized as "better" or useful by editors of the image's respective articles (I linked to such an image in one of the current nominations), and their say is just as important as ours, except they don't (or don't want to) participate here. With your nom, I don't see the big deal, but I don't see the reason to slip into poor habits either. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok I'll do the substitution. --Pine^✉ 07:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 19:21:59 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Adoration of the Magi (Ospedale degli Innocenti)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Domenico Ghirlandaio (photograph by Jastrow)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Super important painting and very clear photo.TCO (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose First off, it's a tiny photograph of a panel that is 285 x 240 cm, so oppose on size alone. Second, the colors seem way off when compared to here and here. Likely heavy handed color corrections was done, which doesn't make it featurable. — raekyt 06:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tomer for nominating my pic. Regarding size, it isn't very big because I had to prop the camera against a wall to avoid cranking up the ISOs. No colour correction has been made; white balance was made manually with a grey card. The reproductions you're linking to are completely washed out; they don't match reality at all. Perhaps the panel has been cleaned since these pictures were taken. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2013 at 00:03:20 (UTC)

Reason

High EV. Amazing man. Striking image. This is his Nobel Prize photo for taming fluorine "that savage beast among the elements".

Articles in which this image appears

Henri Moissan, Fluorine, History of fluorine

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

unknown photographer, image manipulation by User:Centpacrr

• Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry :( The image simply looks bizarre, like a standard-issue Photoshop plug-in was used. I went to the source, but the only image I can find at the source is a teeny tiny picture—surely I was missing something? Page 75 of Les Pris Nobel was larger, but not nearly the resolution this is. And then I found the answer at the Photography workshop, where Centpacrr explains what zoom program he used. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries man. I just threw it in to learn something. Is there anyway to get an image (either donation or manipulation) that matches our technical requirements? Do you think the EV and composition is good?TCO (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any amazing ideas for obtaining a larger version of the photograph. Maybe start checking out sources (like the book the image appears in) for credits; perhaps the photograph is privately owned, perhaps a museum is retaining it. Double check the Library of Congress; maybe others know of other image repositories that may have it. As for EV and composition, I really don't know. I found only one instance of an actual profile FP at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robert William Thomson - Illustrated London News March 29 1873, but his image has obituary text which improved its EV, although note that the image is no longer used and a crop appears in Robert William Thomson. The only other FPs that more closely resemble a profile are File:Theodore Rooseveltnewtry.jpg and File:Helen KellerA.jpg. Otherwise, it appears the community prefers actual 3/4 to straight on shots. But so what. If you can obtain an actual high-res image, there's absolutely zero reason why it shouldn't be nominated. The man is very important in his field. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would be willing to pay for a print, just not sure how to get one. I'm sure the Nobel Prize people won't donate the high res image. (If they even have it...I'm not sure the technical details of how originals for photos or the like are maintained.) I found some 3/4 shots, but this one is much more striking and more fits with the story (his bravery in taming fluorine).TCO (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2013 at 06:01:08 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, high quality, well illustrated. Used in several articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Pony Express, William Henry Jackson, +3

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

William Henry Jackson (images) and Howard R. Driggs (text); restored by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That's right, that's the Overland Trail. Bierstadt followed that route in 1859 up the North Platte, and in 1863, followed down the South Platte, both times I believe starting from Atchison, Kansas. Beautiful map. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Adam's point but Crisco 1492 makes cases for either. I support either since I really can't make up my mind. :P – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice diagram. I looked at it at 2400px in the preview window.TCO (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think there are errors in the dates. The description says "by William Henry Jackson, 1861" which is incorrect and misleading. The date parameter says 1951, which confuses me because the source says "issued by the Union Pacific Railroad Company in commemoration of the Pony Express Centennial, April 3, 1960 - October 24, 1961". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Overland Trail. Several articles credited the image as 1861 and I changed this to 1860, assuming the image was created and issued in time for the commemoration. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, ok I was being really stupid, confusing 1961 with 1861. I think the map shows the 1861 route, and I've gone through the articles and reverted back to the 1861 year, but made clear this was the year of that route, not the year of the map's creation, which obviously confused me on several levels. Hopefully I got it all right. One article's image caption references the 1860 Paiute war, so I didn't change that. Either way, some articles were saying 1860, others 1861, and one or the other should be used for consistency. The map itself was created/issued in 1960 I believe. Again, not sure where 1951 comes in to play. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The LOC gives 1951 for this edition (follow the source link... not sure why though). This version is dated 1961 and was reissued by the American Pioneer Trails Association. Other than that the source is unclear as to when Jackson made the image and for what purpose. It appears (based on comparison with the version dated 1960) that the only change made to this map was the addition of the Railroad's emblem and some red text, which can be removed lickity split if we want to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pony express route April 3, 1860 - October 24, 1861" — Oopsie again. I'll go through the articles this image appears on and change 1861 to 1860. This would make all articles, including Paiute-war-mention, consistent. As for the logo—File:Union Pacific Logo.svg—I tend to scratch my head at what's a simple shape/design and what isn't. If that file is anything to go by, then maybe it should be removed? But I'm no expert on that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's posted here without a copyright notice, so copyright-wise it's fine. But for accuracy to Jackson's work I don't mind removing it. No issues, I take it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No issues from me :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like a little more explanation/understanding of this image's provenance. First, I want to make triple sure of the copyrights. Was the whole design made by Jackson (I don't mind the UP shield, that is de minimus) or was this assembled from his works (or possibly colorized) by UP in 1961? Second, in addition to rights, I think part of an FP should be that we understand the work as a work and right now, it is pretty confusing when/how created and for what reason.TCO (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a copy of the version before "text was added" so we can see the difference and if the new version has originality? (I guess there is also potentially the issue of copyright for the text itself, but I'd like to see if the image was changed (layout, map, etc.)TCO (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no copyright issues. Note how there is no copyright notice, which in the 1960s US meant this was automatically PD (this is the license used, too). The LOC does not have a copy of the design before text was added. For accuracy, see above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. It's a pretty picture and it will get its star, but I think we owe it to the readers or the image-users to unsnarl some of this confusion if we are good encyclopedians.

(1) The panorama dates to 1951, not to 1960 (just the reissue by the Trail Association). This was after Jackson was dead.

(2) Driggs had a significant input in the design (probably the map, text and layout) while the illos (paintings, not photos) are probably Jackson's.

(3) Jackson did do some painting early in his life, but almost entirely photography up until his last 10 years of life when he turned to painting and illustration. I suspect the painting illos are from about 1930s-40s. Driggs put out a book with Jackson in 1935 about the Pony Express and it had Jackson painting illos. I suspect the 1951 map re-used these paintings.

(4) Right now, the image as being used improperly in the Jackson article is wrong. It's down there in the 1861 period of his life...which is misleading and BAD EV.

TCO (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I think we can straighten it out by listing Driggs as a co-creator and by cutting or moving the map from the Jackson article (and looking how it is discussed in other articles also).

P.s.s. The rights stuff is probably fine and I'm not into being a dick about that, but if this info helps to raise any concerns (e.g. 1935 book version of paintings?) than you all who are experts can figure it out. Or ask CLindburg at Commons.

P.s.s.s. I'm not trying to be a dick or fussy or stop Crisco from his star. But my bias is to readers and "use in the articles". And the confusion of this image is kind of the opposite of clear explication.

• (1) As I've stated, the LOC does not give an actual year for the map. This gives two possible books: one 1935, one 1942.
• (2) Added Driggs here, has been credited on images for about an hour.
• (3) Agree, added possible source.
• (4) It's actually in "career as an illustrator", which is poorly developed as is. Anyways, clarified that this is a later illustration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this address your concerns? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. I'm concerned about the usage in article. The placement makes it look like he did those paintings in the 1860s. I think we owe it to the reader to straighten that snarl out. Maybe you think I'm being picky, but from an article usage standpoint stuff like that is pretty important. I just cleared a picture out of Fluorine from De re metallica that is gorgeous and looks like iron smelting related to fluorite use, but really is not (noble metal separation). I'll go finish the research and then move that stuff down and make a section of his bio on his significant career as an illustrator in his last 10 years of life. The usage in other articles is also either wrong or dancingly vague. After that I'll support.TCO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible oppose edit but the original is great, and I Support original. It's misleading to edit out original material in that way, as it presents a highly modified version as if it was the original historic artwork, when the modifications do not improve the image; on the contrary, they remove the provenance of the information. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence why I uploaded it separately. Johnson's original would not have included the logo (and other editions exist without it, as linked above), but I don't mind having it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's far better to take this as an artefact of the time of this image's printing than to speculate about a possible original state without proof. Text could have been rearranged to make space for that - certainly, if it is removed, it produces a large straight bit of negative space not seen anywhere else on the image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • For comparison: 1961 reissue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2013 at 22:34:48 (UTC)

Reason

Great EV. Good quality. Colors are striking.

Articles in which this image appears

Leo II, King of Armenia, Keran, Queen of Armenia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Toros Roslin, 1200s illustrator. (Scanned by Claude Mutafian and uploaded by World Imaging)

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions. Really nice EV and artwork, which inclines me to support. Have a few naïve questions. Do you know a little more about the source (artist, or that it is definitely unknown, also what Armenian document does the work come from). Also, I am not photo techie, but it seemed grainy when I looked at full resolution (like a digital photo or a scan, not like the detail of the parchment).TCO (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @TCO Found it: It's called The Queen Keran Gospel. I'll relay more info on your TP. Wouldn't want to clutter the nomination page... Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support. The info on manuscript/artist sourcing is added now and benefits the file user. Plus it shows the thing as even more notable. Conditional on this not having any "blowing up the resolution" shenanigans.TCO (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose This image is of obviously awful quality. There are large amounts of noise, it is off coloured and low resolution. An image like this should not be photographed but scanned. This artist is well known (possibly better than, at least as well as, those depicted) and good copies of his work aren't all that difficult to find. Cowtowner (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good artwork and photograph. Wonderful EV. --Chauahuasachca (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cowtowner. I would, however, support the shit out of a big high-quality scan- I love the image, just not this reproduction. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2013 at 02:21:41 (UTC)

Reason

good clarity and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Indian Eagel-owl

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Krzych.w on Commons

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 02:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Gentle oppose It's a stunning head shot and works well in the infobox (head shots are iconic and function well even if not huge size). But looking in article, I end up preferring the other two (perched full body as well as the in flight one) in terms of composition. I appreciate your work to take the photo, but am choosey about these subjects to pick the best one.TCO (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that this pic doesn't have the whole body, but the other pics have a distracting background and this looks more natural than those. Also, the eyes of the subject are more in focus in this picture. Besides, I am just a nominator and not the creator of this pic. Anyway, thanks for your vote.--BNK(talk) 05:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good quality, and pretty good EV. We've certainly featured bird portraits before (often without featuring full body shots) so I don't think the EV is in question here, particularly because the appearance of the head is discussed in both the lead and description articles in some detail. Cowtowner (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cowtowner. --Pine^✉ 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2013 at 03:05:00 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, sharp, better than lead image but wouldn't necessarily fit in the infobox. My first bird nom, so I'm not sure if EV is up to par—for one thing, it says "individual" instead of male or female. It appears to be an adult though.

Articles in which this image appears

Lilac-breasted Roller

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Sumeetmoghe (commons)

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What's that floating speck on the right? Ought it be cloned out? dllu (t,c) 03:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Uploaded over original since it was such a minor edit. There was a second spot on the lower right too. No idea what they were. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Grudging support. Hate FP bird pics, but this is one of the nicer ones.TCO (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt preferredTCO (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Grudging oppose Back of the body sinks into shadow, and severe oversharpening is evident on the head. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original in part per Samsara; I don't like the trash on the branch, either. I think the infobox image is a superior illustration of the bird as it shows the feet and the tail more clearly; it's somewhat soft, however (I suppose one could make an argument for downsampling making it of comparative quality to the rest of the gallery?) Cowtowner (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like the file description to say what kind of thorntree plant the bird is sitting in.TCO (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually going to add the lead image as an alt, but I need to fix it up first. I believe that I agree with Cowtowner that the EV of the lead image is superior. We'll see! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt (vote pending) Thanks for the feedback. I added an alt image, which is the lead image in the Lilac-breasted Roller article (the nominated version is being used in the article now). See caption or image description for work done, but mainly the image needed to be sharpened. Same mysterious spots as on the other image, maybe bugs flying around? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt certainly a member of the national bird team of the Earth. Brandmeister^talk 22:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt, prefer the second alt (less colour noise, Alt 1 seems slightly over-sharpened) Cowtowner (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, mine may be slightly over-sharpened (first time working with birds). But what's your opinion on the eye? I asked Biopics below to sharpen anyway. Other FP bird pics seem to have fairly defined eyes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the eye is in line with the rest of the image. Cowtowner (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added another alt where I reworked the image from scratch. Biopics (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Biopics, my support will go to yours after a bit more tweaking. Your image looks like a RAW file before it's been sharpened. Can you sharpen the body a little (not much) and the area around the eye a little bit more? I only noticed that my image got darker after I'd uploaded it and put it here, and that wasn't my intention at all... I must have slipped on a curves layer. Usually I compare my final with original for that exact reason and I let my confidence that no overall changes had been made. I was going to repair it today and saw you uploaded your alt. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt Tomer T (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is coming up to closing, and by my count there are 4 explicit supports, with K having struck his and Biopics having added an alt without stating a vote. This should probably get clarified; it would be a bit of a shame to see this not pass for reasons of ambiguity at this point. Cowtowner (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a slightly sharpened version of Alt 2—every FP of a bird I've seen has been pretty sharp, this still seems soft. As for my edit, I have now tried two times, including re-downloading the original image and redoing the sharpening, and both times the image appears slightly darker after uploading to Commons—there's no luminosity change that I can see in Photoshop, but it appears on three different browsers, so I can't in good conscience vote on my original Alt. I'm pretty frustrated with Photoshop. Unfortunately, I can't vote here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, I suppose. I'd point out that this is somewhat larger than most of our bird FPs and that if it were downsampled and resharpened, could probably made to look as sharp as them (I wouldn't go down that road though as some detail is inevitably lost). Cowtowner (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2013 at 05:59:09 (UTC)

Reason

Good clarity, high EV for the bird and already featured on Spanish Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Black-crowned Night Heron,List of Ciconiiformes by population,List of birds of Andhra Pradesh

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Acarpentier

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Where is the bird and what kind of fish is it eating? (Nice snap otherwise.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 June 2013‎

• I can't comment on the fish, but the image is pretty clearly geotagged on the description page (apparently this specimen is in Montréal). Also please sign your comments :) Cowtowner (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 08:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV for the behaviour section, and certainly has enough drama in it to make the reader want to know more. --ELEKHH^T 09:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good. Would be nice to know the fish species though. Biopics (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral One of my favorite birds. I'm on the fence between neutral and very weak support. The image doesn't show one of the parts of the heron, which the article disappointingly refers to: "Two or three long white plumes, erected in greeting and courtship displays, extend from the back of the head". I would have assumed this piece of anatomy would have an official name. I also find the image really dark and contrasty. I would support if the darks were lightened up a bit. It's a striking image, but those two things make me neutral. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How about the alt version I have just put up.--BNK(talk) 04:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  

• No, I don't think that helped at all—and it's not going to bring the courtship plumes in frame unfortunately :) Sorry, I can't support. But not a bad picture. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks for this nomination Nikhilb239 --Acarpentier (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original only; weak oppose alt Colours seem unnatural in the alt, although not excessively so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bihoreau Gris.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The original is unopposed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2013 at 13:39:15 (UTC)

Reason

A rather nice poster showing a complicated staging of a very silly burlesque on Ben Hur. Could have wished for a bigger scan, but it's well over our size requirements

Articles in which this image appears

Burlesque, American burlesque, Victorian burlesque

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Theatre

Creator

Courier Company, Buffalo, N.Y.; restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Of course! Awesome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• EV Comment It's a nice image, but that is a strange development of the topic with the overall article and then American and Victorian. I suspect merging them and then discussing the nuances would be a more effective way to present the info for the reader. [Sometimes it makes sense to split a topic, but other times really hurts the reader...see this for instance with subspecies of animals when many sources not making the distinction...but Wiki has a bias for splitting and categorization as opposed to synthesis and compare/contrast.] Also, having Bend Her as the lead for the "combined" article seems a little off. I think the lead on the American article is more iconically burlesque.

The subject is a wide subject; parodies of pre-extant works were a particularly big genre of burlesque. As for the image you mention, I quite like it, but going with what's iconic to modern day risks reinforcing an inaccurate perception that that's all the genre was. It wasn't, and so I think it's good to challenge the stereotype early. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Also a pretty hilarious image. Cowtowner (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting :) Brandmeister^talk 09:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning, eye-catching, educational and fun, and the horse on skates is hilarious. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The High Rollers Extravaganza Co. - Bend Her - c.1900.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2013 at 20:44:28 (UTC)

Reason

Besides meeting the criteria, I think this photograph might be one of Wikipedia's finest pictures of Arab men.

Articles in which this image appears

Maktoum bin Mohammed Al Maktoum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty

Creator

Rowan Farrell

• Support as nominator --Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pic looks good. I've asked for a Commonser to do the Flikr review.TCO (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's not super big and the article's not very well developed, and I'd also like to see a little more headroom. However, I do like the photo, and, as said above, this is an underrepresented topic at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agreed with J Milburn. I uploaded a taller crop over the original. I know technically we're not supposed to do this but it seems really fussy to add a separate Alt/edit for a wider crop. Also, my crop retains the EXIF information which I was worried about at first since I wasn't sure about the copyright status of the image. Apparently the copyright is owned by ITU and they released it on their official Flickr account as CC BY; the photographer is credited in the metadata, but it's ITU's copyright. Good enough for me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Those lips! Those eyes! And ordinarily I'd call for a crop, but in this case I think seeing his vestments adds to the EV. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per J Milburn. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sheikh Maktoum.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2013 at 20:52:45 (UTC)

Reason

A good photochrom image of now-destroyed, but significant structures. It's also a useful colour image of the Sophienkirche, although only as accurate as techniques of the time could make it, although, admittedly, the view of the church is slightly obscured. Nonetheless, it's not like we can replace it, and, of course, the other structures are a strength of the image in the other usages.

Articles in which this image appears

Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Zwinger and Sophienkirche.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose. File view looks grainy and shows cataloging watermark. Minor note, image is from 50 years before the bombing.TCO (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This sort of grain is pretty typical in photocroms; they date to an era before colour photography and were thus painted by hand. The watermarking is also typical of period photochroms because they were popularly sent as postcards. The marks catalogue the print for the company and stated the location for the recipient. I suggest taking a peek at the gallery to get a sense of the nature of these images and what can typically be expected of them technically. Cowtowner (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Aye. Those aspects are inherent to all images of this type from this period, and are inherently unavoidable. Photochrom technology was based around a combination of photography and lithographs, and lithographs basically boil down to using acid to create pits in limestone that hold ink, with the amount of acid changing the percentage of surface pitted. This is inherently grainy; the grain creates the artwork. Taking pictures with modern colour film didn't become particularly common until well after the bombing, so it's highly unlikely to find an image from before the bombing, of this or similar subjects, in colour but without the things you object to. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck oppose. I wonder what a good 1944 BW photo would look like, though?TCO (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be a useful addition to the articles, if it existed and can be found. I don't think it'd ruin the EV of this image (if nothing else, there were meant-to-be-temporary changes to the church in 1933, and the copper domes and roofs would not be obvious in black and white), but multiple views of a destroyed object are better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Quality photochrom with strong EV; as adam says obviously we can't recreate this image. Cowtowner (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good ev and nice restoration. Spencer^T♦C 15:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Spencer. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dresden. Zwinger & Sophienkirche. - Detroit Publishing Co.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2013 at 19:47:12 (UTC)

Reason

There's a lot of images here (43 46 47!), and it's admittedly overwhelming. I have made this nomination before and feel it should have passed that time (The count for the then 20 images was +5/-2, and all of the quibbles have since been dealt with--I'll talk about this later). I'll also say up front that I by no means believe that all of these ultimately need to appear on the main page, a couple of the more interesting ones would probably suffice. If the List of map projections article one day becomes a FL, it would be a nice opportunity for some front page cross-pollination. But that's for later.

Images of map projections are invaluable encyclopedically. The only other way to describe a projection is through formula which is rather difficult to visualize for, well, anyone. All of the images are clear, high-resolution (heights inevitably vary) and display the relevant features we would expect of maps--longitude, latitude, tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and the equator. Each image has its own article, for which it is the only possible illustration, and thus has great value. All of them appear on the list of projections; some of them have further applications. As a set, they can be compared side to side to highlight some of the more subtle differences between projections. The consistency between images and articles is unquestionably a boon for the project.

At the previous nomination, users raised issues about the darkness of the images, prominence of lines of the map and the provenance of the images. These concerns are now dealt with. Strebe has remade most of the images and improved them greatly, in my opinion. The lines on the map now feature the Equator and tropics separately. They are a mere 1px in weight and as they are solid are less jarring than the previous dotted ones. The lightened oceans make it easier to read the maps and distinguish between land and water. The process for creating the images (as described on their pages) is that they are reprojections of NASA's Blue Marble image using Geocart. The consensus last nomination was the reapplication of mathematical formulas does not constitute OR.

I have left a note on Strebe's talk page as he is deeply involved in work on map projections.

• 
  Albers
• 
  Aitoff
• 
  Azimuthal equidistant
• 
  Behrmann
• 
  Bonne
• 
  Bottomley
• 
  Cassini
• 
  Chamberlin trimetric
• 
  Collignon
• 
  Craig
• 
  Cylindrical equal-area
• 
  Eckert II
• 
  Eckert IV
• 
  Eckert VI
• 
  Equirectangular
• 
  Gall-Peters
• 
  General Perspective
• 
  Goode homolosine
• 
  Gall stereographic
• 
  Gnomonic
• 
  Guyou
• 
  Hammer
• 
  Hammer retroazimuthal, front
• 
  Hammer retroazimuthal, back
• 
  HEALPix
• 
  Hobo-Dyer
• 
  Kavrayskiy VII
• 
  Lambert azimuthal equal-area
• 
  Lambert conformal conic
• 
  Lambert cylindrical
• 
  Littrow
• 
  Mercator
• 
  Miller
• 
  Mollweide
• 
  Natural Earth
• 
  Orthographic
• 
  Peirce quincuncial
• 
  Polyconic
• 
  Robinson
• 
  Sinusoidal
• 
  Stereographic
• 
  Tobler hyperelliptical
• 
  Two-point equidistant
• 
  Van der Grinten
• 
  Wagner VI
• 
  Werner
• 
  Winkel tripel

Articles in which this image appears

List of map projections, respective articles, + Assorted other applications

FP category for this image

Maps

Creator

Strebe

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Added three more images, changed Peirce one to version used in article based on creator's recommendations. Cowtowner (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How is the size criteria applied to in sets? File:Collignon projection SW.jpg, for example, is small. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought about writing this in the nomination, but decided not too. Hindsight. All of the images are of a set width (~2058 pixels). Their heights vary by the math behind the respective projection. The size criteria is generally applied as it always is. In this case given that all of the images were produced to a standard and are of a high resolution I think in the case of the somewhat "small" images it can be relaxed Cowtowner (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a followup, I suppose that I would add the purpose of the images is important. They aren't trying to show the actual detail of the earth's surface, but rather the shape that results from the various projections of its surface onto a 2D plane. I don't know that strictly enforcing that all images meet the 1500px height requirement helps with that goal beyond adding superflous pixels. Cowtowner (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose these are software generated, and small, no reason why they couldn't be generated significantly larger. EV here is questionable, so many can't possibly have that much EV for any pages they're on. A list page is marginal EV here, imho. Plus a list is essentially a gallery, which is also against criteria. — raekyt 06:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a hugely lazy review. They all have individual articles which were linked to in the gallery and list of the images. There is immense EV here. Also, as Strebe is abreast of the discussion, if the community feels that they need to be larger and that there is a tangible benefit to it, he maybe able to accomodate. Cowtowner (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Images look good and encouraging this sort of consistent, high quality, wide-ranging collection of images is a good idea. P.s. Cowtowner, be more concise please. TCO (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I usually am. A previous nomination and the size made it complicated. I though laying it out clearly would help. Cowtowner (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think this set of images is very informative and well thought out. I think the sizes make sense, and they are very good for the purpose. They helped my understanding of the subject! Nofearnolimits 21:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofearnolimits (talk • contribs)
• I quite like this set, but any chance of including some of the pythagorean solid-based projections, say the Dymaxion and the Cahill butterfly? Inclined to support, just think it'd be useful to include a missing map type. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cahill’s butterfly is not just a single projection. He devised many variations, promoting different ones at different times. The basic arrangement was always the same, but he experimented with different projection schemes, resulting in considerable change to the form of the basic lobe. His original scheme used an arbitrary projection that was not well explained, and he even made ad hoc adjustments to some of the lobes. None of the schemes achieved any great notoriety, so I feel uncomfortable “canonizing” any particular one.
• Fuller, too, promoted more than one scheme, and my discomfort is compounded by World Game claiming some sort of trademark right or copyright to the projection, the nature and extent of which is not clear to me, and while I am dubious of the claims’ legitimacy, have no interest in testing them. Strebe (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, with regards to the Dymaxion, we have featured this animation which at least demonstrates the concept. Cowtowner (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator Apparently the creator is allowed to vote. I will explain some of the rationale that went into the creation of these images. These principles were discussed before I replaced the ad hoc accumulation of images already present on the various projection pages.

• The base image is derived from NASA Blue Marble imagery, but the oceanic color has been replaced to be much lighter as well as pleasing regardless of monitor color and gamma variations.
• The resolution is a compromise between the need for useful thumbnail presentation and the need for useful base maps. For thumbnails, the lines of the graticule need to be abnormally thick; for actual maps using the full resolution of the imagery, they need to be thinner. Images of higher resolution would work poorly for thumbnails. Images of lower resolution would work poorly for any practical mapping.
• The projection technology reduces aliasing to near theoretical limits. A suite of map projection images of this diversity and quality has never been produced before, not even for research purposes.
• I felt a standardized width is more important than a standardized height because in Web presentation it is the page width that is the constraint.
• The software used to create these images implements far more map projections, so if and when new articles appear for those projections, they will be easily illustrated to the same standards.

Strebe (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: it says the image is a "derivative of NASA’s Blue Marble summer month composite with oceans lightened to enhance legibility and contrast" - whose derivative? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the derivative that comes with the Geocart software. From the Geocart manual: “The maps you make with Geocart may be used however you see fit without license and without having to credit Geocart (though we would appreciate if you would when it is reasonable to do so).” From [7]: “Anyone using or republishing Blue Marble: Next Generation please credit 'NASA’s Earth Observatory.’” Strebe (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is certainly an extremely encyclopedic set. dllu (t,c) 03:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added another image which, by coincidence, was requested today for a new article. Strebe (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albers_projection_SW.jpg Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And the other 46 images in the set. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2013 at 20:29:18 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Palau Nacional

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Felix König

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Full support except for that supremely annoying guy standing up in the middle. When dedicating themselves to a project like this, I don't understand why photographers don't wait two minutes for people to move, then paint them out (or whatever). Definite wow for the building and surroundings. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per K-man.TCO (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose.As per Keraunoscopia. But I think the guy is a major distraction from the magnificient architecture and when I looked at the pic this guy immediately caught my attention. Sorry. --BNK(talk) 04:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Very nice quality image providing a lot of detail but poor bottom crop. Also the white cloud in the middle reduces the legibility of the building's silhouette, precisely at the top . -ELEKHH^T 01:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The guy standing in the middle of the photo, yes, but also the fact that the foreground is completely cut out. It's a compositional faux pas, and removes the sense of perspective from the scene IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have to agree with Diliff. While it's a good image all round and has a lot going for it, it just doesn't seem quite right without the foreground. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2013 at 15:12:33 (UTC)

Reason

I've not been through the FP process before, so I'm going to treat the criteria like a check list, so sorry if this if overkill.

1. High technical standard: I am not an avid photographer, but to my eye it's well framed with the subject front and centre, with the landscape in the background adding context. I asked for the opinion of someone far more experienced with images than I, and there is some "funny artefacting". I'm pretty sure that's the technical term.
2. High resolution: the full size is 3,648 × 2,736 pixels.
3. Amongst Wikipedia's best work: I edit a lot of articles about buildings, particularly castle, and aerial photographs are very rare. Ones with good colours, which show the whole subject, are of a good size, and are Commons licensed are even rarer. Aerial photographs allow you to view a building almost all at once; that's part of the reason why you'll find them in publications on buildings. And they have the advantage of being compelling. It really stands out, and for that reason is the lead image of the article on the castle. I think it's really important to have a photo which makes people want to learn more, and this image fills that description to a t. It has the advantage of showing the whole of the castle in its landscape on the edge of the Firth of Forth, helping to understand the strength of the site. It is an uncommon angle because the camera was suspended underneath a kite, flown by the photographer standing on the jetty projecting from the promontory.
4. Has a free licence: CC-BY 3.0
5. Adds encyclopedic value: This relates to the third criterion, but in particular this adds a lot to the article on Blackness Castle. In a nutshell, when writing an article on a building I am desparate for good aerial photgraphs. People would give their eye teeth for this photo of
6. Is verifiable: yep
7. Full description: complete with geotag and meta data
8. No digital manipulation: It doesn't look manipulated to me and the meta data indicates as much.

Articles in which this image appears

• Blackness Castle (lead image)
• Kite aerial photography
• List of castles in Scotland

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Dr John Wells

• Support as nominator --Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this has no illustration of the building's depth (in fact, it looks like we got the shorter side of it). We can't see just how far the building goes because of this angle. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The buildings you can see behind the tower standing alone in the courtyard mark the end of the castle, so you can see how far back it goes. I might be misunderstanding what you mean by depth though. Nev1 (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what Crisco means (because I see it, too) is that the angle from which the photo is taken compresses the perspective so that you can't perceive the depth of the courtyard and distances between the objects accurately. From the photo it's quite difficult to tell that the layout of the castle is much more like this. Cowtowner (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• More or less, yes. That second photograph illustrates my concern somewhat (who would have expected empty space between the two towers, for instance, from this photograph?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for taking the trouble to explain that to me, both of you. I understand the concern (and that photo is rather good too, don't suppose we can contact the copyright holder?) but I still think this file is amongst the best Wikipedia has to offer and is a good representation of the castle. Nev1 (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment File:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like this picture because of the way this photo is taken (using kite), it really gives an unusual angle and inspire to read the article further. For other points I agree with the poster's logic. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to vote and participate but don't run around deleting others' comments or votes. Cowtowner (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An unusual picture, and like Godhulii, I like the fact that it was taken using kite photography. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As mentioned above, I think this composition is a poor illustration of the castle. Additionally, there seems to be a lot of noise, or some kind of artefacting, as well as a lack of shadow detail which hurts its technical quality. Cowtowner (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: really cool picture when you look at it at file view size. the angle which seems quirky, then does not bother me and you see the whole landscape. I don't think this is a good lead image though. Probably better to have something simpler like the front door or the main view that tourists have (more iconic, simple) in lead. This could be a panorama-ish shot lower down and support some discussion of how the castle fits in with the modern world around it now.TCO (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Also, I support the technical effort taken to get the photo.TCO (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IMO The image has high encyclopaedic value, providing a good overview of the castle's layout and immediate surroundings, unlike any of our previous castle FPs. However I think the bottom crop is too tight, so that is not evident from the image that the castle is located at the tip of a small peninsula, and looking at the image alone I've first mistaken the pier to be an access bridge. I also find the perspective distortions excessive: for instance from the image is hard to deduct that the bottom-left corner is at 90 degrees. --ELEKHH^T 01:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While the image has some technical faults, having been to Blackness, I can say it's a very difficult castle to photograph - everything is fairly tight, and there's very little gap between the castle and the firth. As such, I think that this comes under the "mediocre photo of a very difficult subject" exception. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm convinced. I scrolled through a lot of pictures and it really does look like the only feasible angle from which to photograph the castle. That said, I still would like better quality, but it's a tough enough picture to get. Cowtowner (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Blackness Castle, Blackness, Scotland..jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 05:59:05 (UTC)

Reason

A smooth and accurate animation depicting a specific motion used by crustaceans to escape danger. The encyclopedic value is obvious since this is the only animation on Wikipedia that illustrates the article on the Caridoid escape reaction.

Articles in which this image appears

Caridoid escape reaction, Aquatic locomotion, Escape response, Antarctic krill, Shrimp

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

Uwe Kils

• Support as nominator --dllu (t,c) 05:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I also support the alt. dllu (t,c) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In principle support, but not yet. I definitely think we need more FPs (and just images on the Wiki) that are explanatory, rather than pretty pictures. So a biomechanics gif is great. I think a slower presentation might be better. You are probably dancing around with the issue of gif being used as a proxy for video (and I support you on using gif, Wiki video is not viewable by over 50% of the reading public.) Maybe if you showed less actual motions, you could go into more detail and slow it down. Also, perhaps not blue on blue. Just some thougts and opening a discussion. Again, what you've created is AWESOME in terms of article explanation.TCO (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:ACCESS. Animated GIFs should be converted to video. A sequence drawings would imo be more useful coupled with a video of an actual animal. The still frames would also work when the article is printed. Colin°^Talk 11:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The animation here is so short that having the play/pause functionality of a video does not make much sense (the MOS specifically said that only ones longer than 5 seconds should be converted to video). The file size is so small that the streaming advantage of video is negated. A sequence of still frames does not give nearly as good of an idea of what the motion is like. Notice that we already have many existing featured animated GIFs, including very recently promoted ones, that have far longer durations (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, and many more). dllu (t,c) 23:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with animated gifs are well documented and they are no longer used anywhere other than Wikipedia. The rest of the world moved to Flash and is now moving to HTML5/Javascript. Wikipedia is at least two generations behind the world. The behaviour is easily demonstrated by a video of a real crustacean. The fact that we may lack such a video is no reason to feature a gif. Animation tends to provoke a "cool" reaction at FP but in practice, if you want to concentrate on reading the article, or understanding the concepts, GIFs are annoying and inferior to many other methods of illustration. Co56lin°^Talk 08:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the arguments about Flash and HTML5 being used elsewhere are applicable here. Yes, they may be used on other parts of the web, but they aren't available here. It's rather unfair to punish a nomination for being in the only format allowed. Furthermore, in this case where there's a short duration and a quite small organism, I don't see there being much of a benefit. Cowtowner (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The current version has been modified from the original upload by Uwe Kils, not necessarily for the better. The prominent "Δt 18 ms" is not explained anywhere, but apparently refers to the actual frame rate at which the images have been traced, so that the illustrated action takes place in 0.45 seconds real time, i.e. the current animation has been slowed down about 4-fold from real time. I strongly doubt that this is something that the typical user could figure out at a glance. I won't oppose, but I simply cannot support such an inadequately explained image. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. One frame has a duration of 1500 milliseconds, the remaining 24 frames are 50 ms each. So the present animation is slowed approximately 3-fold from real time. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is an alternative animation that I can Support. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Now that it's slower I think this works much better. I don't think a video is really feasible for this (Underwater, very small, very fast subject make for a very difficult piece of camera work) Cowtowner (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt That'll do. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Wow, nice! As a lay person, Stigmatella was correct in saying I wouldn't understand "∆t 18ms", but the slower version makes much more sense and is even more impressive. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support alt-BNK(talk) 02:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt - as objectively, the alt version does make the movements easier to see and understand in time. (Although I do personally prefer the "delta t" aspect of the original). BTW I don't care what the rest of the web world thinks about or does with animated GIFs these days - stuff like this does its job excellently . Plutonium27 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be better if the transition from caption to animation and back again was not so abrupt and frantic. Even a few blank frames intervening would help. 86.161.61.208 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Caridoid escape reaction.gif --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 86.161.61.208 after end of voting period. Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 16:20:10 (UTC)

File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg

Reason

It's parallel, and has good exposure, composition, sharpness, and details.

Articles in which this image appears

Autumn Leaf, Defense in insects, Butterfly

FP category for this image

Animals

Creator

Arctic Kangaroo

• Support as nominator -- Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is the underside generally most helpful to show (big color difference here). Also, in article, it suffers from placement in the infobox instead of a larger placement below (perhaps centered) with supporting discussion of the features of the anatomy.TCO (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

? Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the ventral nor dorsal sides are inherently more valuable. They're both on the animal. It would be like arguing about the obverse or reverse of a coin being more important. The infobox is just where most of these images go, they're also the ones which seem to be most likely to be clicked. Cowtowner (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom Great details; I never see the wing scales this much clear in a in vivo shot. JKadavoor Jee 07:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now this work is on the edge for a speedy promotion in Commons; but almost neglected here. I think this is comparable to File:Kallima inachus qtl1.jpg; so this view and placement in article seems OK. Further, these dead leaf butterflies prefer to perch with their wings closed. It is part of their survival tricks. They prefer to perch downwards whenever possible as in the other example to boost the dead leaf mimic. (They occasionally show their colorful upper-side to attract their mates.) JKadavoor Jee 04:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 18:52:01 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality scan of a notable subject

Articles in which this image appears

Terry-Thomas; Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Scanned and cleaned by SchroCat

• Support as nominator --SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I preferred the other one as being more iconic and humorous (closer to the roles he is noted for). This one seems a little soft (not technically, but just his expression). I supported the other one.TCO (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately the other one didn't get sufficient support. - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- A clean and clear photo of a quintessentially British character actor with bags of EV. I prefer this to the previous one. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2013 at 13:58:19 (UTC)

Reason

Nice impression of the fishing town Tai O of Hong Kong. High EV, high resolution and good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Tai O

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Chensiyuan

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Nice picture, but I think it needs a little sharpening on both the extreme ends and it has motion blur on the right side. --BNK(talk) 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Per BNK. Neat things to find in the far background. Unfortunately, I also find that yellow (raft?) in the bottom corner out of place (it probably isn't) and distracting. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2013 at 17:20:40 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Anders Fogh Rasmussen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Magnus Fröderberg

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Has anything changed since the last nomination? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't notice that. Withdraw. Tomer T (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2013 at 08:56:51 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Common Blackbird, List of birds of Sweden, List of birds of Andhra Pradesh

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Andreas Trepte

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 08:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - It's a nice picture, but the cropping (not sure whether it was cropped) seems a little too tight for me. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 09:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets the criteria, and the standards for birds. Cowtowner (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Crop doesn't bother me, especially at full size. I get the impression the worm is about to perform surprise sutemi-waza on that poor bird. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Overfeatured category.TCO (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unfair reason to half-support someone's image, which should stand of its own accord as it would on its own article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a reason at all. What do you propose? We feature no more birds until we have an equivalent number of, say, molluscs? Cowtowner (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what about us unicellular organisms? :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Uninspiring crop and a very common bird, so definitely replaceable. Good quality and a decent pose, though. The maggot adds EV. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I partially agree with Milburn, but there's only so much you can do and keep the image encyclopedic - too dramatic, and you need another image to show key features. So I'm fine with this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Common Blackbird.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2013 at 21:08:43 (UTC)

Reason

High-quality image, in high resolution. This picture is unique in sense that is extremely rare to find anticyclones so well defined as this one. This is, by far, the most visible high in wikipedia, and so, the best example of one.

Articles in which this image appears

High-pressure area, Pressure system

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather

Creator

Earth100

• Support as nominator --ABC paulista (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There appears to be two versions of this image in the file history, with someone uploaded a completely different image over someone else's. So I'm not sure what the protocol is in this case, but the two should probably be separated, and both the old and newly created file names should be much more descriptive than "high pressure". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen other contributors do that. It comes from article creators just interested in their article. Agree on split.TCO (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both are images of the same anticyclone. It's just that the second one is more defined and more centered in the phenomena than the original one. ABC paulista (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I wonder if some other graphic (a diagram, photo over land to show scale) might be more illustrative. You definitely see the cloud break though.TCO (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this image is perfect for illustrating the weather phenomenon; I'd also prefer it to a diagram. I agree that an indication of scale (even on the image description) would be useful. Cowtowner (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems pretty useful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2013 at 03:28:19 (UTC)

Reason

Good image, good quality, good resolution

Articles in which this image appears

Christian scholarship, James Dobson

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Focus on the Family

• Support as nominator --Mediran (t • c) 03:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Top left corner missing image, something funky happening at the left-side bottom edge. Not sure what's with the dim halo behind his shoulders. Also, very strange composition, almost like the photographer was turning away when someone called "lunch" as he was pressing the shutter; I would normally support a crop, but I think too much of his left shoulder (frame right) is missing; unfortunate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clear picture. I think the composition is intentional. TCO (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't forgive the glitchy bottom edge and top left corner. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added an Alt. Cropped out the weird edging via rotation (it looked to me like at some point in its life the image got spun around), took a little off the left side to balance it out. Cowtowner (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you add an sRGB color profile? Your edit seems slightly darker (and therefore more red) to me. Tag you're it :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I saved two versions, one that kept the original profile, and one that I saved with no profile at all. I spent a lot of time flipping between the two trying to determine if I was crazy for thinking it looked minutely different. I honestly can't say for sure (there is slight change in the face between the two?); part of me wants to believe it's an optical illusion because of the slightly-new position of the background gradient. Cowtowner (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there's a definite shift in color (for me, and I would not consider that reliable at this moment, so hopefully a third party will step in) between File:James Dobson 2noprofile.jpg and File:James Dobson 2.jpg, and no color shift between File:James Dobson 2noprofile.jpg and File:James Dobson 1.jpg. However, between the last two, it looks like they are two different images—instead of a normal two-dimensional rotation, the rotation almost appears three-dimensional. Did you find a different photograph? The coat and tie shift and there's more spacing between them. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind, talk about an optical illusion. The rotation is just a regular rotation it appears. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking again, you're right. The no profile one is oranger and the same as the original; the one with the profile added appears to be slightly more flesh-coloured. Oddly, I think it actually looks more natural (happy coincidence?). So, I'm not sure which one others will prefer. And the loss of the edge of the pocket did give the impression of a perspective correction (and left me saying to myself "I know I didn't do that, but I don't think I'm crazy "). Cowtowner (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, to clarify, I uploaded an alt, but I'm not going to support this. I find this man deplorable. Cowtowner (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Looks like a Dulux "terracotta tones" test card, complexion included. And whilst it is entirely incidental, I happen to entirely agree with Cowtowner's addendum just above. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Ultra standard common portrait, dime a dozen. — raekyt 01:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2013 at 20:10:52 (UTC)

Reason

High quality rendering (Google Art Project) of a well-known and important painting. Edge is somewhat jagged, but I don't think that's critical.

Articles in which this image appears

Ophelia (painting), John Everett Millais, Ophelia, +10

FP category for this image

Paintings

Creator

John Everett Millais

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful masterwork, although it appears (to me) that the bird was almost a last minute or hasty addition (makes for a fun spotting game). I'm also confused by the strange green stem, about halfway above her dress. Perfect blending on the hands and face. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Image is, of course, lovely, but is anyone else concerned by the weird, pixellated cut-out? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was, but I settled on it being okay for a couple reasons. Firstly, there's not detail lost, secondly the reproduction is of the highest digital quality that is likely to be made and thirdly I suspect it had to be taken out of the frame for this image, and it's difficult to say what lies beyond the edges (at best, data extraneous to the painting. Leaving it in would be mislead, cutting it out is somewhat awkward, but acceptable). Cowtowner (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom mentioned it above and it's the first thing I looked at and no it didn't concern me enough to affect my vote. The painting itself is probably smoother and probably originally had to fit within a recessed wall (I don't know, haven't researched it). Should someone go in and smooth it? Perhaps. But perhaps it's best to just leave it alone? For a professional and probably expensive scan, it's pretty shoddy. But I also never looked at that corner of the painting in the several times I went to view the painting. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess you're right. Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:John_Everett_Millais_-_Ophelia_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2013 at 20:58:24 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, high quality and well-illuminated photo of the difficult to photograph (due to wide-field-of-view and shadows) Western facade of Viborg Cathedral, Denmark

Articles in which this image appears

Viborg Cathedral

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

Slaunger

• Support as nominator --Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since the cathedral has several nearby buildings, it is challenging to capture it illuminated without distracting shadows. However, in June the sun is sufficiently high in the evenings to just allow for a uniform soft evening light on the granite surface of the Western wall - when sunny. Furthermore, you have to get quite close in order to get an unobstructed view of this facade, and you get a quite wide field of view. I have done my best to find a reasonable compromise between geometric distortions and this wide field of view. The off-centered view was chosen as I could use the stairs of a building at that position to get some more elevation and look over the parked cars. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, it looks like a tough building to get a picture of, especially with the parking lot running the whole way up to its door. But, do you happen to know from which vantage point this image was taken from? Cowtowner (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Thanks for the question. That photo is for sure taken from an airborne object and illustrates the Northern and Western facades. There are no vantage points, which allows you to look down on the cathedral like that. The parking lot is usually almost filled, and getting a combination of evening sun, June-July and a low number of cars is hard. --Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the response; I'll bite and support as it seems exceptionally difficult/unlikely to get a better view. Cowtowner (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The soft evening light the photographer has taken care to capture does give an attractive warmth to the stone, but it also has the effect of minimizing visible detail of the masonry and architecture. But the big problem are those ranks of parked cars - this may be a "low number"of them but they are still too obtrusive. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am fine with your oppose argument due to the cars (as sometimes you can get lucky and be there with fewer cars), but I have to object to "...but it also has the effect of minimizing visible detail of the masonry and architecture". The photo is an exposure fused stitch using three different exposures to get the best possible image dynamics and capture all details. The photo is over 75 Mpixels, and of course if you look at it in full resolution, where you can only have a fraction of the photo on your screen, you will see pixel-by-pixel softness due to the sensor and lens, as I have done no downsampling. If you look at this in a resolution, where you have the entire photo or just the full width in your screen, I would claim it is crisp from the base of the building to the top. Had I chosen more bright daylight (earlier in the day), there would have been blown highlights and I could not get so good illumination of all surfaces on the facades due to the direction of the sun. Overcast would have been an option as well, but would have given dull light. --Slaunger (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree; this is a very good picture, and we need to be pragmatic to the subject being taken. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2013 at 01:21:59 (UTC)

Reason

Fairly high-resolution portrait photograph of the Swedish singer and songwriter with one of her main instruments, the piano (the other being the guitar). A major note on this photograph: I consider the original picture to be damaged—no offense to photographer Benoît Derrier—perhaps due to the unfortunate combination of high ISO and lighting conditions. This picture required extensive and multiple techniques of noise reduction, selectively used in various geometries of the image, including a final scale-down to seal the deal. I found 1625 pixels tall to be about the largest I can keep the image, and I didn't want to bring the photograph down to 1500 if I could avoid it.

Articles in which this image appears

Anna Ternheim

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Benoît Derrier, photograph; Keraunoscopia, restorative engineering

• Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I appreciate the efforts you went to to try to improve on the original photo but I think the noise reduction is excessive. I'm not sure that any amount of work could really get it up to FP level though, honestly. I'm very surprised that a D300 at ISO 1400 (?) would result in that much noise. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could've been a poor lens as well? I watched the music videos of her performing (link in image description) and the lighting didn't appear overly dark, so I don't understand all the original noise either. As for the noise reduction, don't FPs prefer almost no noise at all? I certainly had to be excessive in areas to get to this level—the original is practically like looking at a screen print. Ah well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good compromise is to noise reduce problematic areas separately. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant when I wrote "selectively used in various geometries of the image", probably not Featured Article-worthy explanation :) Basically the image can be broken into several shapes between the blacks, whites, jacket, face, hair. Each one got a different NR treatment, either requiring less or more, and sometimes with different techniques (if one way didn't work, I'd try another)... along with spot removal for blatant noise and blur tool for others. The most difficult for some reason was around the neck and especially (not surprisingly) the eyes, which would lose what very little sharpness they had. The irises have different NR than the whites, etc. Maybe I didn't go about it the right way. Without reducing the image's size, though, it was still really noisy. Maybe a 1500 pixel tall version would look a bit better, but probably still wouldn't reach FP. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as above. I was gearing up to support when I saw the thumbnail, then I looked at it full size... J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2013 at 02:51:48 (UTC)

Reason

A high-quality lithograph, with much interest in it in the previous nomination. (Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Young_Abraham_Lincoln), which I didn't get done in time due to a lot of stains.

Articles in which this image appears

Abraham Lincoln, et al.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Original image:

• Thomas Hicks (1823-1890, artist)
• Leopold Grozelier (1830-1865, lithographer)
• W. William Schaus (publisher)
• J.H. Bufford's Lith. (printer)

Restoration:

• Adam Cuerden

• Support (either) as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great restoration! :) Mediran (t • c) 09:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (prefer alt) Obviously. Beautifully restored. Cowtowner (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both original and Alt 1 (preferred) — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Very, very nice. But my concern is the amount of white space around the most important part of the image. The borders and outside text may have been an inherent part of the original, and I respect your decision to keep it, but I can't help but think of File:Robert William Thomson - Illustrated London News March 29 1873.png, which everyone was so willing to support, only to have the image cropped and unused in any English article. What's the point, then? And maybe it's just me, but I have difficulty reading the very bottom-most text, even in the image description page. This image's penultimate, but most often viewed, fate is as a poor thumbnail within the article. I would rather see a larger version of the colored portion of the image next to the article text than all that dead space and "invisible" text at the bottom ("Hon. Abraham Lincoln, ...etc.") and a pushed-into-tinydom portrait of Lincoln in 1860. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be misleading, however. And the Robert Thomson change was from a period when the conventions for images still tended towards only allowing very small ones in articles. Now, that said, if we wanted to argue about cropping to the edges of the lithograph plate - there's an obvious mark at the edge of the indentation - I could see that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it be misleading? Surely the crop would reference the source: this image here. And the original nomination was for the borderless plate. (Am I using "plate" correctly? I don't understand the terminology. I assume plate means the color/shaded portion.) I don't think removing the border completely may be possible because the y in "by Hicks" on the bottom left of the shaded area seems to dip into the white a bit. Regardless, the important part of the image, Lincoln, is being pressed into a smaller size to make way for a whole lot of blank white or difficult-to-see text that could just as easily be mentioned in a caption or on the image description page. Again, I'm thinking of the article and readers here. This image is obviously remarkable as-is. But I would support a crop since that would serve the article better, in my opinion. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid you're not using plate correctly - the coloured area isn't the plate (well, the colouration is likely a separate plate, but not what I'm referring to) If you look very closely, you'll see that, outside of the text, and outside of the coloured area, there's an obvious, but very slight, change in colour. Lithographic plates are applied with a lot of pressure, and compress the paper fibres, so, if you know what you're looking for, you can know exactly where the original work ends. Cropping to the coloured section is rarely a good idea: it just makes the image look like its white point was misadjusted, since this sort of colouration is a fairly obscure tradition nowadays, and wasn't particularly common even by this period. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for correcting me. Ooh, I see the color change—subtle. I saw it before but didn't make the connection that it went all the way around. I would settle for a crop to that point, which makes me wonder why all the extra white space around that, but I do understand your point regarding the white point. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the extreme minority so I'm not sure you even need to do a crop at this point, but keeping the publishing information makes perfect sense and would supersede my previous comments regarding cropping even that out. So, to clarify, a crop would still be of the entire original plate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Eh, it's useful to have extra paper, because - for example, Americans use 8.5"x11" paper, but most of the other countries use A4, and this is likely one of the old bookbinding paper sizes - folio, quarto, etc. The differences in proportions means that what works for printing on one type doesn't work so well on the others, unless you can crop to shape, and, unless you want to remove paper texture from the image, any bits of blank paper will be noticeable. However, people'll know as there's a tag telling them, right? Uploading now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support LOC does a good digitization job. Abe's signature contributes to EV. Brandmeister^talk 22:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should just warn that I have seen at least one case where a signature was printed with the image. It may well be that's a real signature specific to this copy, but the LoC don't mention it, and I wouldn't want to presume. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks valuable even if it's a facsimile signature. I'm neutral on alt 1 in this case. Brandmeister^talk 19:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1 Already his face is much larger in the frame. Btw, your work, Adam, is exemplary, hope you realize my concerns were only with white space. But thanks so much for offering a pristine crop to please a customer :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite understood; it's just that I want to make sure the image elements are all clear. particularly where this sort of tinting effect is used. It's very easy to create a crop that confuses the user, such as (as discussed before) not showing that the image is tinted by not including some of the untinted paper. A bit of discussion often leads to something acceptable to everyone. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like an ideal solution to me; stated my preference for the alt above. Cowtowner (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thomas Hicks - Leopold Grozelier - Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln 1860 - cropped to lithographic plate.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear preference for alt  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2013 at 12:19:09 (UTC)

Reason

A famous view of the Yosemite Valley, very detailed and taken on a reasonably clear and crisp spring day, maximising the flow of the waterfall.

Articles in which this image appears

Tunnel View and Yosemite National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Future support from me, but on Tunnel View, there are two nearly identical images right next to each other. Kind of diminishes the EV of both, imo. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That kind of makes sense, though, doesn't it? It's an article about a specific outlook, so it's kind of unlikely that the images are going to be different... 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. Like Cowtowner (sort of) mentions below, a second image should show the same view from, say, a different time of day. I do not think your image should have dramatic lighting—to be honest, I find this image dramatic enough and it's refreshing to see it when most of us would see it, not during the rare occurrence of rainbows, storm clouds, and crepuscular rays. But two images that look remarkably similar simply makes this image an equal to the other. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The obvious solution would be to simply remove the inferior image then. We wouldn't keep a redundant image in other articles. With regards to dramatic, I'm not referring to spectacular lighting, but an average day at Yosemite can mean a lot of things (I'd also note that we do usually look for lighting in other photos that are often atypical of the area-say expecting sun in a typically overcast region)Cowtowner (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, I don't think more aesthetic lighting would hurt; as it stands it's both a wonderful photo and encyclopedic. Cowtowner (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understood you. And I think the fact that it's fairly flat lighting and still looks good goes to show that the golden hour or a blazing sunset isn't a requirement for a good mountain landscape photograph. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is also one of the most famously beautiful panoramas in North America, it's got a bit of a head start on being photogenic. But, you are right that it is a good illustration of why exceptional light isn't a requirement for FP (and perhaps a detriment). Cowtowner (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. I actually took four or five different photos of this scene on various days and different time of day during my stay in Yosemite, and although some of them were more dramatic, I uploaded this one as I think it shows the scene in the most balanced way. When the sun was too bright, or at an oblique angle, the shadows were quite unaesthetic. The sunset photo was not as spectacular as some might imagine. By the time the sun is on or just below the horizon, huge swathes of the valley are in deep shadow and only the tips of the mountains receive any direct light at all. It's possible that a sunrise photo might work better, but I wasn't prepared to wake up at 4am to capture it. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how photographers do it. I'd love to be able to get up at the wolf hour with a smile on my face and hike up to some godforsaken location all chipper, commanding the skies to be one-of-a-kind, but instead I'm drooling and sawing zzz's. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be a challenge. I just uploaded another four 'Tunnel View' photos that I took on the trip with varying lighting/weather/time of day. I assume you'll agree with me that the original is probably the best to illustrate the view. Others have their quirks and advantages, but I wasn't entirely happy with any of them. Such is a photographer's lot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting comparisons, thanks for doing that! Alts 1 and 2 seem to really show off the Bridalveil, but I certainly agree that the original image is the best for the overall view. Actually it's quite the shot, avoiding harsh shadows and harsh sunlight. Thanks for the PTGui suggestion, I'll look into it further later this week. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, though more dramatic lighting, as in your Half Dome image, would make me go wild. Cowtowner (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - epic colors in the sky would help if you were looking for votes on 500px, but the soft and consistent light works very well here. Not especially concerned about the similar photos on the Tunnel View page. Juliancolton (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, I've stated my little thing above, but this image is the better of the two (on the Tunnel View article) and the image is gorgeous on the Yosemite NP article. Exif data doesn't say what camera was used? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was taken with a Canon 5D Mk III, it's not in the EXIF data because the image is stitched - the stitching program removes it but somehow keeps the exposure info. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I am really digging the aspect ratio, 1.53. Probably my favorite cinema ratio is 1.66, but I'm finding yours to be a "grand" ratio, absolutely fitting the landscape perfectly. What stitching program, just out of curiosity? I tried learning Hugin but apparently it's for smart people. I need to watch a couple tutorials to figure that one out some day. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Diliff uses Ptgui with smartblend as stated on his userpage. dllu (t,c) 03:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dllu. Yeah, Hugin is quite similar to PTGui. I've tried both but I tend to prefer PTGui, probably more out of familiarity than anything else. They can essentially do exactly the same job though. To understand how it works, it just takes a bit of practice and the understanding of how the different projections affect the result. You also need to know how to shoot the actual images (ie keep the exposures consistent, allow for significant overlap, etc). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support dllu (t,c) 22:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -BNK(talk) 02:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Laitche (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2013 at 16:46:04 (UTC)

Reason

Good Quality, better in category, hight EV

Articles in which this image appears

Chlosyne lacinia

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Animals/Insects)

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Wilfredor (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't meet size requirements and is oversharpened. I see blocks of white pixels. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Oversharpened. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 02:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2013 at 13:45:55 (UTC)

Reason

It's a good quality photo for 1973 and large enough for reproduction. It shows the difference in terms of development along the slopes of Table Mountain over the last 40 years.

Articles in which this image appears

Table Mountain Aerial Cableway

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Robvanvee

• Support as nominator --Robvanvee 13:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment image potentially has lots of EV if it was used a bit better in the article; it can likely be used in others as well. The image page needs to be cleaned up a bit: need correct date. Robvanvee, are you the original photographer or did you just scan it? Not doubting anything here, just curious :)--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at those issues you mention, thanks. It is a scan from the original. I'm related to the owner of the picture. Is that a problem? Robvanvee 05:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about "own work" as well. Very cool shot. But the original photographer should be credited. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the original photographer needs to grant permission to release the photo under a free license. Technically speaking, this image is a copyright violation at the moment, I think. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this photo is a copyright violation, as you point out, it happened unintentionally. I'm still new to FPC and was trying to get involved as opposed to complaining about "too many birds on the front page" (no offense JJ Harrison). It seemed like an interesting shot with potentially high EV, which was my primary motivation for nomination. Though it has no bearing on my nomination, the person in the shot is my father from his days at Table Mountain Aerial Cableway and the photo was passed on to me from him. I have a clean record at WP and would like to keep it that way, so any assistance on how I can get this photo cleared for use in the public domain would be greatly appreciated! Robvanvee 06:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robvanvee, absolutely. In regards to clearing up the copyright, is your father still living? If he is, you'll need him to license the image using one of the free licenses WP accepts, or giving a public domain waiver. Remember, it has to be his choice which one he does. This can be given in writing to you. You then need to send that permission to WP's Copyright Service ([email protected]), they'll create an OTRS ticket, and the copyright status of the image will be verified. If your father is no longer living, the same will need to be done, but in this case, the owner of the picture will be his estate/heirs. Cheers! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add a link to the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If Robvanvee's father is still alive, I think he can read over that, make the appropriate changes, and sign it (or agree to it over email) and that can be forwarded to OTRS. I'm not familiar with any process otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wingtipvortex and ‎Keraunoscopia. He is alive and I will run this past him ASAP. In the meantime should the picture be removed/taken down? Robvanvee 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any immediate concern in removing the image, but again I'm not overly familiar with this situation. Perhaps you could also ask for more details on what it is he's doing (technical terms always add a nice flavor to descriptions, imo) and if the cable car is over an open area and at what altitude—it's difficult to judge from the photo. Perhaps this nomination should be postponed then. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suspended Pending copyright clarification. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing has happened to clear the copyright of the image. The nominator may feel free to renominate the image, once that happened. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2013 at 05:03:59 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Namaqua Chameleon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Hans Stieglitz

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, quite interesting. Brandmeister^talk 15:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cute little fella on his way to receive his FP star :P – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And looking rather proud to be, too. Cowtowner (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support High-quality and good focus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Cowtowner (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Namaqua Chamäleon-01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2013 at 06:31:28 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Anthocharis cardamines

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Michael Apel

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JKadavoor Jee 13:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brandmeister^talk 08:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The blurring of the bottom part of the plant is a little bit of a let-down but entirely redeemed by the exquisite detail capture of the wing markings. The non-distracting background is a big help: indeed, the deep olive shade compliments and sets off the delicate colours of both creature and plant. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Laitche (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. Made me think of Sir Ector from Sword in the Stone. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Anthocharis cardamines female MichaD.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2013 at 06:46:04 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Livraria Lello & Irmão

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

Alegna13

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I suspect that this shop often has people taking photos of it, the large number of photographers in this image diminishes the EV in my view (and suggests that it may have been taken as part of an organised photo walk - I note that the image was taken during Wiki Loves Monuments). The angle of the staircase looks distorted, and the hand of the photographer at the upper left is blurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Mostly because it gives no impression of the staircase for which Lello & Irmão are famous for. Probably would have been better taken from the other side of the shop. The photographers are also distracting, but probably inevitable to some degree. Cowtowner (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition isn't that great here - it's too narrow of a perspective. The quality also is subpar, as if it was taken with a cell phone camera. Razum2010 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You must have a better phone than I do Cowtowner (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was taken with a Canon 350D at ISO 400. Although I agree that the quality is slightly sub-par for that ISO... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2013 at 09:51:52 (UTC)

Reason

good clarity and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Jürgen Klinsmann, Premier League Player of the Month, United States men's national soccer team

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Alexander Hauk

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 09:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems little more than a snapshot, with an unfortunately distracting (and ugly) background. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Plutonium27. --ELEKHH^T 10:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2013 at 10:17:12 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Ellmau

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Bernie Kohl

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image was shoved into the External Links section earlier today. Horrendous article location, and not 7-day stable. Cool pic, haven't had time to look at it otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check more carefully next time. Tomer T (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And about the location: it seems like the appropriate location for a panorama. Tomer T (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, my bad! Poor Sherlock Holmesian technique on my part, I saw you made an edit in the External Links section and didn't check to see what the edit was. I actually was hoping someone would pull a nagualdesign and have that image at the very top :) But anyway, I'm still not a fan of the current placement—however, I'm not using default viewing mode (I'm in Modern or something) and things always look very different. When I get more of a moment—busy today—I'll look at the whole thing more closely. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Stitching in sky isn't smooth, and something about the image is bothering me, probably over contrasting. Also, the sheep on the right is so strange looking. Was it photoshopped in or something? Also checked out the article in default viewing mode and it's just weird being at the bottom of the article, but I understand it'd be hard to fit it up anywhere there since the entire article is dominated by the infobox. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't think the stitching is too bad. Certainly I've have worse in some of my panoramas. Detail is only average considering the width and view, but overall a satisfying panorama. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Think it's quite good, maybe a smidgen saturated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose As the other reviewers have noted, it is a quality image. I think the EV suffers here though given its placement in the article and relatively little pertinent discussion to the image. Cowtowner (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the placement in the article. Tomer T (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'll do. Support Cowtowner (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Placement in article much better. My issues above are probably uncorrectable by this point and it is a nice image. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it meets the criteria. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:AD2008Aug24 Ellmau panorama.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2013 at 20:03:15 (UTC)

Reason

Very high resolution, excellent quality image of a specimen with high EV. FP on Commons already.

Articles in which this image appears

Artificial cranial deformation, +1

FP category for this image

Really debated this, I'm not sure there's a clearcut answer. History - Other

Creator

Didier Descouens

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Valuable, but I hate that weird, fake background. J Milburn (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a fan either, but I don't think it's overly intrusive. That said Archaedontosaurus is the creator, so he may be able to replace it with straight black, as he has in other of his images. Cowtowner (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Over time I came to the conclusion that it was not a good idea. But in those days, I found this interresting technique. If I have time I will make a black version this weekend.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a good plan to me; if it become time consuming or doesn't fit your agenda, this could always be suspended for a while. Cheers! Cowtowner (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added alt, thanks to Archaeodontosaurus' work. Cowtowner (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Black background makes looking at image very pleasant on full screen. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Agree. I'm assuming - since it's Archaeodontosaurus and he knows what he's doing - that the slightly odd-looking roughness on the back of the skull is genuinely there, and that's the only possible issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well observed, but this is not an error on my part. You see the skull at its best profile for the other side he took a hammer blow and was busted. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards support I agree with the nominator that this is an excellent photo. The scale in the bottom right hand corner looks like a smudge when the picture is a thumbnail. It's fantastic to include a scale, but could it be made bigger? If the scale was increased to say 5cm or even 10cm it would be more obvious and could hopefully remain discreet. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt although I do think that the picture would be improved if the scale were made larger. dllu (t,c) 06:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll third the scale enlargement. I had the same issue but since I'm not familiar with this sort of photography, didn't know if it was normal or not. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification needed': Cowtowner and Archaeodontosaurus, do you support the alt? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course. Cowtowner (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Archaeodontosaurus? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Déformation Péruvienne MHNT Noir.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 23:23:07 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image, a relaxed portrait of a man who we're not going to get anymore pictures of.

Articles in which this image appears

Peter Sellers, +5

FP category for this image

People - Entertainment

Creator

Allan warren (We've featured his work before, and there's certainly more to come)

• Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer alt. Cowtowner (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice iconic pic. Would still like it just a little bigger (damned infoboxes).TCO (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, increased the image size to 300px in the infobox. Bit of a shame that it's longer than the lead, but it was like that before. Cowtowner (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted the size increase per WP:IMGSIZE. There's no justification for this other than that some folk like bigger pictures. TCO, if you have a problem with the default image width for thumbnails and/or infoboxes, take this up with MOS. Colin°^Talk 11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it looked better the other way, but ultimately couldn't be bothered to give enough damns one way or the other. Cowtowner (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't about what looks better for one person. The current defaults for thumbnails and info boxes are a compromise set by the community for a variety of users with different needs. TCO seems to want every pic he sees to be a bit larger. But hard-coding sizes per-article is the worse possible solution. Colin°^Talk 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I see that aspect entirely. It's the sort of thing that I don't much care to quibble about; it's not why I come on to edit. To keep it simple in the future I won't indulge. Cowtowner (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit Wooowwwww how lucky are we?! I didn't know about Mr. Warren till now. From what little I know about scanning, it seems his work is pristine. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --BNK(talk) 07:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Allan Warren's work, and his donation of it, is a priceless asset to Wiki(p/m)edia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It isn't flawless but.. Colin°^Talk 11:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose left eyebrow seems weird. Needs restoration work? Tomer T (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch, there's a scratch there. He has a gray streak in his left eyebrow which appears in File:Peter Sellers 22 Allan Warren.jpg and File:Peter Sellers 24 Allan Warren.jpg. The last picture is backwards (Sellers even looks weird). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I did notice that, too. It looks worse given the alignment. There's some dust on the image too, and some of the compression on his sweater (his right arm) is a bit off, too. On the whole I felt it was forgivable for the age. Restoration would obviously help, as it would for most images of age. Cowtowner (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's good enough as a Valued image on Commons and good enough for FP here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Allan Warren at his best. FP worthy. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added an edit. I should retract my original "pristine" statement, this image had hairs, black spots, and some deterioration (?) or something on the sweater, along with the eyebrow scratch. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Colours are changed. Looks desaturated and overexposed now. Cowtowner (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is so frustrating, and I'm sure Colin's going to have a field day with me again lol. The original image doesn't have an sRGB profile. So what am I supposed to do? Okay, I'm going to try something and it means redoing the whole thing all over again. I'll tell Photoshop not to color manage, and when the image looks funky to me, maybe that means it's normal to everyone else. I'm on a brand new macbook pro, I don't understand why my monitor would be so different. btw, the two images looked exactly the same to me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok quick test: can you download the image from my dropbox [link redacted (file removed)] and open it in your browser and tell me how it looks? If everything's copacetic, I'll redo the edit tomorrow. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strange that it's happening to you on a Macbook Pro; that's what I use as well, and to my recollection haven't ever come across something similar. The image from your dropbox shows now signs of mysterious colour alterations. So sorry that you keep getting sent back to the drawing board! Cowtowner (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I have my Photoshop set up incorrectly. Anyway, I really appreciate your checking. I opened the file in PS and left it "as is (don't color manage)", and resaved it. It appears this is the secret. If a file comes with a profile embedded, I don't seem to have any problems—or at least no one's spoken up. It's always been when I try to attach an sRGB profile to a no-color-profile-embedded file that problems arise. I'm almost done, will have it up in a few. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redid the edit from scratch. I added about 1/3 more spot and hair removals, plus fixed the iris—iris isn't missing a piece in File:Peter Sellers 24 Allan Warren.jpg. Overwrite, so hopefully everything purges correctly. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me, I'm sure Pete appreciates the reconstructive eye surgery. Colours haven't changed, either! I guess your photoshop is trying to compensate colour profile that isn't there; at least now you've got the problem figured. Thanks for doing the restoration work. Cheers, Cowtowner (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know in the first place. I am now seriously wondering how many photos I've worked on that are completely not what I intended them on being. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit. Looks great. Kaldari (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is everyone okay with the edit? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, SchroCat, Cassianto, TCO? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with it. SchroCat is on holiday, so there maybe a delay in him answering. I can't see it being an issue though. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the presumption with alts (especially relatively uncontroversial ones like this) is that if no objections are raised and other nominators support them, they are tacitly accepted? (Not that I'm at all opposed to ensuring everyone is on the same page, but if things need to be moved along) Cowtowner (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot close this one (I've voted above). I don't know why Armbrust (who's done most of the closing recently) hasn't closed this, as s/he hasn't voted, but if its because of a lack of explicit support for the alt I just want to make sure we cross that t. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Felt a little uneasy about this. BTW Armbrust=he, just for future reference. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Peter Sellers at home in Belgravia, London, 1973.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a rough consensus, that the edit is better (which is also unopposed BTW). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2013 at 12:18:16 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Lindau

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Julian Herzog

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice picture. You have a knack for finding some excellent pics. -BNK(talk) 05:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Tomer T (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely., and very sharp. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support solid enough.Geni (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Works on all levels for showing the harbour entrance; nice lighting, a boat passing through and very sharp. Cowtowner (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lindau Harbor Lake Constance MS Schwaben 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2013 at 00:36:26 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and shows the two most popular landmarks of the city.

Articles in which this image appears

Germany, Munich, Demographics of Germany

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Der Wolf im Wald

• Neutral as nominator and creator -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Should be stable in Munich where it seems to carry more EV, I think, than in Germany (you would not believe how many times I scrolled through that article or did keyword searches looking for it! But it's there). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. I'm not convinced it's really the best possible photo of the subject. I should mention that I'm a little biased, as this photo attempts to illustrate two subjects that I have photographed and which are used in the Munich article a little further down. I don't think this photo illustrates either of them better than the individual photos. A photo which combines both subjects should be more expansive (probably a panorama, or at least a slightly wider angle) and show the entire town hall and Marienplatz IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Diliff. Also I think the image would have been better if it was wider (maybe at 18mm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanyambahga (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2013 at 15:27:07 (UTC)

Reason

I was looking around the SCOTUS blog, out off curiosity about the major cases coming up - for those that don't know, I was raised in America before moving to Britain. I saw they won a Peabody Award, and a little wikiwalk later, I found us using a massively scaled-down version of this image. That's relatively common: People grab the Library of Congress' JPEG copies, not realising the TIFFs can be 5 or more times higher resolution. It makes for a very easy way to improve Wikipedia, and I was quite happy to take it.

This is a very good photograph, of a notable businessman, and was a relatively easy restoration, clocking in at 3 hours or so. Plus, I then discovered that the photography studio lacked a sample. As my work only fixed up some dust spots and damage presumably post-dating their photograph, I think this is an excellent sample of their work.

Articles in which this image appears

George Foster Peabody, Pach Brothers, Peabody Award

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others, though we should probably clean that category out a bit - there's a lot of things in it that should rightfully be in the other "People" categories.

Creator

Pach Brothers, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bang up job. is there a reason you kept the little spot above his left hand, near the jacket edge? It doesn't appear to be a watch chain to me (the only thing I can think of that might be there). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looked different to the dust and spotting elsewhere - more like the rest of the photo. I don't know what it might be, but I wasn't entirely sure it shouldn't be there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Leave as is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Soft at full size, particularly when compared to some older photos, like the one above from 1895. Brandmeister^talk 15:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, these are the other options: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/hec.05269/ http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/hec.05270/ ( also http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2005012603/ - but that one's very, very blurry) If you think these are better, I will gladly restore one.

As for why it's blurrier - well, I have noticed that there is a dropoff in photographic quality around 1910 for a bit. I could speculate, but don't think it'd be useful. Probably changes in photographic equipment that had advantages other than sharpness. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both tiffs also appear blurry. Not a big deal though since this person may not be particularly interesting. Brandmeister^talk 21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's notable enough to have his own article, and an award. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. There is no notability threshold for a featured picture, except that which applies to all articles. Notable enough for an article = notable enough for an FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - However, there seems to be a large fleck of dust right in the middle of his forehead. Could you get that, Adam? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I er, forgot to post it, but this was fixed last night.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pach Brothers - George Foster Peabody.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2013 at 20:27:59 (UTC)

Reason

Wanted to do a little more Pach Brothers work, and onee must admit that American Presidents are notable in and of themselves. Realised I had a half-done restoration, so finished up. Replaced an unrestored copy.

I left the watermark in due to Pach Brothers; if you think it'd be better to do a set with both options, I can do that.

Articles in which this image appears

Benjamin Harrison, Pach Brothers, many others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Pach Brothers, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Knocking these out of the park. Leave watermark, it's fascinating. Along with your photochroms, I've since learned to appreciate WP:WATERMARK and especially in this case, with the EV of the watermark being included in the caption. Shame the article is short; two images gets a bit busy (plus my preferences is to have images around 250–300 px wide), but both images work well together. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. And, of course, they have other uses, but the watermarked image of a president is about as good of an image you can get to illustrate a Photography studio: It shows they attracted important people, and shows how they chose to portray their logo. =) But I could certainly understand if people wanted an unmarked copy for use in other articles, hence the offer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fantastic restoration, good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cowtowner (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pach Brothers - Benjamin Harrison.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2013 at 18:40:31 (UTC)

Reason

Another great picture from Kyle Cassidy. Lots of personality, great lighting and a free license. A highly notable subject known for his comedic music- a side I think this picture captures well.

Articles in which this image appears

"Weird Al" Yankovic

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Kyle Cassidy

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I hope you'll forgive me, but I actually find the lighting harsh, and Yankovic just looks weird and too demonic to be funny. I prefer his normal, relaxed self. His face is oddly soft (maybe it's just me). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Because Yankovic just looks weird. Cowtowner (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like his facial expression and appears apt for the genre of his songs --BNK(talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. It's excellently captured. It falls just slightly short of the resolution requirements but it's tack-sharp. You could upsize it to the requirements and still be happy with the quality. It shows Weird Al in a typical 'in character' pose. I think there'd be room for a second FP of him a normal, relaxed, 'out of character' pose. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't around for the minimum size requirement discussion, and I think in this case, the image should not be enlarged—I know you're only suggesting it as an unneeded option—but that's why I didn't consider it as part of my vote above, it just wouldn't seem right. The image is quite large for being a free professional shot of a celebrity who took time out of his day to be photographed on a lit set/stage. Usually I'd be the first in line to support a photograph of him, I have most of his CDs, but I surprised myself when I found I wasn't overly impressed by the photograph. My loss, no one else's! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's a bit undersize, but as Diliff says... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Diliff. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kyle-cassidy-weird-al-yankovic.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2013 at 13:00:57 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Nazi party rally grounds, Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Taxiarchos228

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as it stands, the image is only used in a gallery in the section of the Nazi party rally grounds article discussing the Congress Hall and sits pretty uselessly in the Documentation Center article (it gives no sense of where the center is in the building). As well, looking that the picture one would easily get the impression that the building is a round Coliseum-type structure as opposed to the open-ended horseshoe that it is. As such I think it's a poor depiction. Cowtowner (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cowtowner. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As Cowtowner said, this angle doesn't give a full idea of the shape of the building. It's a good illustration and a very nice photo, but is best understood in conjunction with other sources or photographs rather than on its own. This kind of building is very difficult to get a representative picture of from ground level. The best pictures I've seen of theatres and amphitheatres are from an elevated position. It can be done, but that may be quite difficult. Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Tomer T (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2013 at 11:41:04 (UTC)

Reason

Photography of the elderly emperor taken from the British Royal Collection. The high quality of the photography, portraying the soon-to-be-dethroned monarch looking at the horizon, is clear

Articles in which this image appears

Pedro II of Brazil

FP category for this image

History

Creator

Alphonse J. Liébert (1817-1914); uploaded by Lecen

• Support as nominator --Lecen (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The image is great, but it's rather undersize. Is there any way we can get a bigger picture of him? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think so. See here. It's the largest provided. --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Firstly, even if this were the best available image, I'd say it was too small to be featured (it comes from a source that could clearly be reproduced at a larger size). Secondly, I'll be damned if we don't have a picture of Pedro that's already featured (I found it on a google search for Pedro II of Brazil. It's the first result....). Why it's not the lead picture in his article, I haven't a clue. But it should be. Suggest speedy close. Cowtowner (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Because there is a featured picture of a subject we can't have another? That doesn't make any sense. --Lecen (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure we could, if there were EV that was independent of the other image and the second image were up to the standards. This is effectively the same picture of this man and at a hugely inferior quality. Cowtowner (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, way below the size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2013 at 21:53:09 (UTC)

Reason

This is a giant image with well-done lighting, composition, and color selection which clearly depicts exactly what the article is talking about and instantly places the subject into the viewer's visual context. It's easily of the same quality as other visual examples seen in, for example, undergraduate chemistry textbooks. The image is probably not perfect (I'm not qualified to decide, I just know that I think it looks good and I like it), and I'm sure the aesthetic savants here will find numerous minor flaws and details to criticize, but I believe it is still an excellent example of the high-quality volunteer work Wikipedia and its associated projects produce, most chiefly for its ability to clearly and immediately depict an otherwise minor or trivial topic.

Articles in which this image appears

Diet Coke and Mentos eruption

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others

Creator

Michael Murphy

• Support as nominator --Omg whatever (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I put an FP category in the nomination above; it has an animation of a water droplet and that's the closest representation I could find to help me locate the right cat. Judging from the second picture on the article, I'm guessing this was photographed as the foam was dying down? I was doing this with my little cousins last summer and the explosion was incredibly quick. I find the picture visually interesting and while the framing could have been a bit better, I think the photographer was undoubtedly unable to know which side the foam would spill on. So a centered frame is probably the best way to go. Almost too tight of a crop. But definitely a picture that will draw readers in to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was almost certainly dying down. The other picture in the article seems to show the maximum height a bit better (although it was probably by no means scientific or accurate). dllu (t,c) 05:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per previous nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's slightly interesting are the two previous noms in which people state this photograph can be retaken and be much better. Six years later, no one has done so. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the "Diet Coke" on the label is a trademark, I've added the trademark template to the description page. I don't see anything copyrightable on the label, so that should not be an issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there were anything, I'm pretty sure it would be de minimis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice pic and encouraged me to read the wikipedia article.Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Despite the minor flaws (oversaturation, poor sharpness, blown highlights, distracting stained cloth in the background), it's a well-executed shot overall. Few would risk damaging expensive cameras with something like this; and it probably took more than one try to get right. By the way I noticed, in savant fashion, that the edit done by Fourthords on 7 January 2009 was lossy. Maybe it should be redone in a lossless way. dllu (t,c) 05:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV is excellent and more than makes up for minor imperfections. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 16:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I tried to make a photo very similar to this a few years ago. Unfortunately, all of the mentos packets that I could get my hands on were glazed in some way, and whilst there was a reaction, it was not of the usual violence level, probably due to reduced surface area. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diet Coke Mentos.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2013 at 21:47:15 (UTC)

Reason

A photograph of a famed photographer. Good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Ara Guler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Others

Creator

Frank Payne

• Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Soft and telephone coming out of head. Unrelated to my vote, is this 1500 pixel limit requirement forcing people to enlarge images now? "Weird Al" Yankovic isn't doing it (below) and is garnering many supports. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like all such things, it's a requirement as much as we choose to enforce it. The intent is to give people reason to release as high quality of an image as possible; but it's not a death pact.

Basically, if you contact a studio or the like, and explain what feature picture requirements are, they're more likely to give us something higher quality if higher quality is part of those requirements. Plus, it encourages people to not be lazy: it's all too easy to stop looking after you find something just over the requirements. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Agree with above. The Weird Al photo is an exception, and it was correctly pointed out in that nom that I made a hypothetical suggestion that we could upsize it and still be happy with the quality, but I didn't actually intend for it to be done because there is no point doing so - it doesn't actually give the photo more detail. In the case of this photo, it was never sharp enough before being upsized, and therefore still suffers from the same problem now. There are also issues with focus, noise and colour balance. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Just a bad picture. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap the nomination please. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2013 at 11:57:39 (UTC)

Reason

Poems are one of the hardest things to illustrate; this illustrates both the poem, the unillustrated artist and engraver, and has a smidgen of additional use.

Articles in which this image appears

Halloween (poem), John Masey Wright, Edward Scriven, and Culture of the United Kingdom (This last has a big section on this poem. Go figure.)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment or possibly Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

John Masey Wright and Edward Scriven, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Visually interesting. Also, can you pipe Scriven's name in the description page? The :en: is showing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be fixed now. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fantastic. Although the Culture of the UK may need some trimming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. That article's probably needs a full rewrite. But the other usages should be quite stable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, can be the 2013 POTD for Halloween. Brandmeister^talk 07:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 2014. 2013 is already scheduled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-very nice.-BNK(talk) 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:J. M. Wright - Edward Scriven - Robert Burns - Halloween.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Placed image in the FP category Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2013 at 12:39:59 (UTC)

Reason

*It's a well composed view of the Old Town Square in Prague at night. Detail is good and verticals have been corrected. Unfortunately as is the case with long exposures, people are blurred and there is some ghosting in the foreground but I think this is unavoidable.

Articles in which this image appears

Old Town (Prague)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Maybe ghosts are unavoidable as you are saying but too distracting. Sorry Diliff. --Laitche (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Nice composition and night-lighting. I have no issue with ghosts, as long-exposure captures the dynamics of the place. Seeing the sharp faces of some random individuals in the foreground would be truly distracting. EV would be higher in Old Town Square (Prague), but that's a sad little stub. --ELEKHH^T 10:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it is an accurate rendition - I've been there. My mum's parents were Czech, she liked the photo fwiw also. JJ Harrison (talk)
• Support Ghosts not a problem for me, the people are not the subject. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I'd almost be tempted, next time you do a picture like this, to do a really, really long exposure at very high F-stop (or do I mean low f-stop? It's technically a fraction) so that the ghosts are more long-trail and thus more interesting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• High is the preferred term. The problem that you run into there with digital cameras is diffraction which can compromise the overall sharpness of the image. Cowtowner (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, I think taking this closer to twilight would have given better relief of the buildings and balanced the artificial light with the natural better. That said, still works. Cowtowner (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice one. Can't we use the ghosting in this image in the article ghosting?—BNK(talk) 01:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a different kind of ghosting. This is motion blur, which is already pretty well illustrated. Cowtowner (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Prague Old Town Square, Czech Republic - Oct 2010.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2013 at 16:16:14 (UTC)

Reason

A very good quality image of Iris ensata.

Articles in which this image appears

Japanese iris

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Laitche

• Support as nominator --Laitche (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I came across a clandestine meadow filled with wild purple irises today, which I'm sure I've never seen before. As beautiful as the grasses are, I do find the flowers kind of harshly lit. Can it be redone with the flowers covered by a light-diffusing fabric of some sort, a butterfly or umbrella; or in overcast weather? I'm really not sure how flower photography is done, but it seems direct sunlight isn't working here (for me, at any rate). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2013 at 18:05:52 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Schaffhausen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Chensiyuan

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support CA in the trees in the background. Otherwise, I like it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. I like it, but it feels incomplete and constrained by the 2:3 aspect ratio. How much wider could the view extend if it were shot as a panorama? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor lighting. A sunny day shot would have been better. Sanyambahga (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2013 at 18:14:06 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Maillezais Cathedral

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Selbymay

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice composition and lighting. Image caption, as well as article could be much improved. --ELEKHH^T 09:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, indeed good angle and lighting. Brandmeister^talk 14:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The yellow trees and blue snow lead me to question realism in this level of saturation. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nev1 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Also, coming from a land of ice and snow, I'd say these colours look perfectly natural for early sunset lighting. Cowtowner (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above all. Sanyambahga (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Maillezais - Cathedrale Saint-Pierre 01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2013 at 01:54:21 (UTC)

Reason

It's hard to illustrate poems, no matter how notable. Illustrated editions are rare. But I found one. =) Planning ahead, this would be a very good December 31st / January 1st PotD, if, of course, it passes muster. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Auld Lang Syne et al.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment or possibly Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

John Masey Wright and John Rogers, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yes please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As always well restored, encyclopedic and well found. The non-IPA Scottish pronunciation guide in the article gave me a laugh, too. Cowtowner (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The quality is very good. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:John Masey Wright - John Rogers - Robert Burns - Auld Lang Syne.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2013 at 09:03:29 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good scan, important figure, very well used

Articles in which this image appears

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, +17

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Lemuel Francis Abbott

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the pluck of Lord Nelson on board of the Victory... – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Genius of Bismarck devising a plan. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment compression artifacts visible at 2074×2500 Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. You are right, although they're not as obtrustive as they can sometimes be. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • After thinking it over, I've decided to give this photograph my Support despite my misgivings over its quality issues. It appears to be the best photograph available of this painting on the internet, the artifacts aren't bad at a 50% view, which is still of substantial size, Horatio Nelson is of major historical importance, almost legendary in his status, and the white spots appear to represent real damage to the painting, not to be retouched. This is not Commons, so EV reigns supreme. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per reasons outlined by the nominator. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not great quality but we can D&R if we get a better one. --Pine^✉ 07:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as per Pine. It has an artefact problem, but this is by far the best for now. "England expects that every man will do his duty!" Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:HoratioNelson1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2013 at 15:51:20 (UTC)

Reason

Nice dynamic portrait, high EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Doron Sheffer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Alpert Nathan

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality's fine for 1993, and we lack a time machine. Couple dust spots on the fingers could be removed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is not bad due to the balls, but aesthetic quality is very poor, with the blown-out sky on top of his head, and the strangely cropped hands. --ELEKHH^T 09:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Though I find myself questioning the miniature basketball. Cowtowner (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Happy to overlook the quality issues per Adam, but the lighting's hardly ideal. Jut generally uninspiring. Missing a certain something- doesn't really draw me in to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor lighting. Sanyambahga (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose-Per J Milburn. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2013 at 06:46:36 (UTC)

Reason

high quality and high EV. Already featured on Persian Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Thorny dragon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

KeresH

• Support as nominator --BNK(talk) 06:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cool animal, but left side of the body is out of focus. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2013 at 15:15:03 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality scan of notable subject in an interesting pose

Articles in which this image appears

Terry-Thomas; Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Employee(s) of United Artists, scanned and cleaned up by SchroCat

• Support as nominator --SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Appears to meet criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose Tons and tons of JPEG artefacting; any chance we can get a PNG or TIFF scan? The image itself is well worth featuring, but the quality is greatly reduced by the artefacting. And since we have someone who owns a copy right here, why compromise? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – per previous nomination. An important image of an important person within British 20th centuary cinema. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't know whether it is JPEG or from the scanner but the image has a lot of digital noise. Colin°^Talk 10:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2013 at 23:56:53 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good quality, notable subject, particularly good for comparison

Articles in which this image appears

PlayStation 2, PlayStation (console), History of video game consoles (sixth generation), List of video game consoles, List of best-selling video games

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent quality. A timely nomination, considering the recent announcement of the PS4. dllu (t,c) 06:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One could criticize the controller blocking part of the view of one of them, but the better composition this creates makes up for it, in my opinion, since it only blocks the least-interesting part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice picture. -BNK(talk) 02:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice clean shot. Good EV. Colin°^Talk 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The angle and position of the controller makes the perspective seem rather wonky to me. Cowtowner (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. YEah. That's one of the things you learn when you get into drawing: Reality can be shockingly fake-looking. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect the effect is enhanced by the lack of shadows in the image. Personally, this would have been better shot with the controller sitting in front of the console. Cowtowner (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a product shot, wouldn't this image be more appropriately formatted as a PNG with background transparency (in place of the white)? czar · · 17:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no. This is a photograph. Colin°^Talk 20:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:PS2-Versions.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2013 at 11:11:32 (UTC)

Reason

Diliff's below photo of Petra Martić reminded me of this photo by Wilfredor. Great quality, good illustrative value.

Articles in which this image appears

Perspiration

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Face is cut off, and there's no real way for the viewer to see that it's sweat for sure (perhaps the boy just exited a pool). Perhaps the face looks a little overmoist. Spencer^T♦C 01:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Decent picture, I would say, but too ambiguous to have any real EV. Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This kid would be seriously dehydrated if it was actually sweat. There's no way. -- mcshadypl ^TC 01:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw per above comments - maybe should be removed from article. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]