Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2012

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 29 Feb 2012 at 23:11:06 (UTC)

Reason

high resolution and EV, good exampel of Silhouette

Articles in which this image appears

silhouette

FP category for this image

Creator

درفش کاویانی

• Support as nominator --Mamad ^TALK 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Currently, this is just another picture in the gallery of a heavily-illustrated article. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JMilburn. Clegs (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JMilburn. I don't see how this picture will really add any exceptional EV to the article over the other 29 pictures already in the article. Dusty777 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per EV issues. I love the photo --Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with other comments about EV. Pine^talk 09:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- It is a good picture. However, the subject matter is not important (combination of distinctive, encyclopedic, rare, creative, ...) enough for it to be featured. Sumanch (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 00:54:30 (UTC)

Reason

An illustrative pose of a very important living Australian Spider (featuring its distinguishing red mark). The photo took quite some effort to obtain, because the subject is small and uncooperative (and dangerous), but I am very happy with the result in terms of quality and composition. An earlier FP of this species was rightly delisted in 2007 Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Redback_spider, but may serve as a comparison.

Articles in which this image appears

Redback spider

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Technically speaking, it's quite noisy and not all that sharp when you zoom up all the way, but it looks nice enough at a 50% zoom (which I think still would meet the size requirements) and it's big on wow factor, and has great EV.126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Clerk note: Votes from IP addresses cannot be counted. Clegs (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"are generally disregarded" ≠ "cannot be counted". Not that I expect you to count it, but I think you should quote the rule as it is, without making it stricter. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, this is perfectly accurate: "Per resolved discussion on the talk page, votes from this IP are to be ignored." Clegs (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It had nothing to do with the IP but whether the user was voting while logged in. That said the IP is getting tedious by voting when he is aware they are to be disregarded. The IP user should just make a comment as they will be welcome. In either case stop commenting on the votes to be disregarded and allow the closer to handle the tally. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per noise. To the anom, the rules state that we judge based on full size, not an arbitrary zoom level. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Would you like me to upload an alt at the minimum required resolution of 531x1000? Thankfully as far as I can read the rules don't "state" anything of the sort, because if they did, that would encourage uploaders to do a bad thing (downsample). Rather, the criteria ask you to judge the technical standard (yes including noise). To do that fairly across different sized images, the best way is to compare them at equivalent sizes to one another (say, perhaps the 1000px, since some pics will come in at that size). I'm not saying you shouldn't look at the full-res, but the IP's argument is sound. --99of9 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 50% is not an "arbitrary" zoom level, as it's above the minimum requirements. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Blurry and noisy. If reshot in focus with a better camera, it could be easily an FP. Clegs (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a problem with the camera. We have hundreds of FPs with that model, including recently. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think that the noise comes from a combination sharpening something that wasn't very sharp to begin with and correcting underexposure, but there is too much of it and not much detail there. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I imagine it is also due to shooting the spider at f/16. At high magnification, this aperture is going to give you significant diffraction softening, but the trade off is that you get the entire spider in focus (including the legs), which is otherwise impossible without focus stacking. Spiders are especially challenging to get past FPC. Either people complain that your image isn't sharp enough/high res enough or they complain that it isn't all in focus. Unless it's a relatively large spider, it's very difficult to do both. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you're both right. Next time I will ensure that I don't underexpose. The exposure was automatically chosen, which was no good for so much white paper and a black subject. But I think f/16 was the right choice for this, because spiders are very three dimensional (and the body-focus was accurate).--99of9 (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 10:24:53 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality portrait of a notable person.

Articles in which this image appears

Henry Lawrence Garrett III, United States Secretary of the Navy, USS Iowa turret explosion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

James P. Vineyard

• Support as nominator. I'm aware that this photo has some noise issues but given the age of the photo I think it's acceptable. --Pine^talk 10:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, but while this image is useful, it's not of high quality. Garrett is in a fairly awkward and artificial pose, and the fact that half his face is in shadow is quite problematic. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- I like the pose, but the graininess bugs me. We have older images that are sharper. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quality and EV are acceptable. No reason not to feature that I can see. Clegs (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 11:07:40 (UTC)

Reason

I'm nominating these three images as a set. They appear in the article USS Iowa turret explosion to illustrate how the ship's turret guns are loaded normally. An explosion occurred in the Number Two 16-inch gun turret on April 19, 1989. The explosion in the center gun room killed 47 of the turret's crewmen and severely damaged the gun turret itself. Two major investigations were undertaken, one by the Navy and then one by the then-General Accounting Office and Sandia National Laboratories.

Articles in which this image appears

USS Iowa turret explosion. Also, I have added the first image to Gun turret.

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology/Weaponry

Creator

PHAN William Holck, USN

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it if someone could make these images appear side by side instead of showing up vertically here in FPC. Thanks! Pine^talk 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you to J Milburn for help with formatting. Pine^talk 11:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like the camera angle. Pics 2-3 look like the guys are standing on the wall (not that it is that BIG of a deal, it just gives me a headache, and reduces the enjoyability of looking at the pictures), and there is a guys hand in the right side of each picture (causes distraction from the main subject), and there is some noise/graininess throughout all of the pictures (not that big of a deal, the pictures are 26 years old, and with film, comes some grain.) The pictures have excellent EV, but I don't believe it can outweigh these minor issues. Dusty777 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice set, but the first picture should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. All photos could use some chroma noise filtering. O.J. (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There is indeed a lot of grain. I have a sneaking suspicion this is a scan of a print, not a negative, and not necessarily a great print either. Is there something unusually rare about these to offset that quality problem? Wouldn't this have been done in pretty much the same way many times on any ship with guns of this size and type? Chick Bowen 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These photos were taken in the same turret that exploded in an incident that killed 47 crewmen. See USS Iowa turret explosion. Pine^talk 05:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I got that. I meant, is there anything distinctive about this set up or the process they're following? I mean, if the purpose is to show the right way to do this in contrast to the wrong way that led to the disaster, then it seems like a series that showed what was going on in a clearer way would be more valuable, even if it was taken in a different (but similar) turret. Chick Bowen 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 06:46:08 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, notable work by notable artist.

Articles in which this image appears

Ginevra de' Benci, List of works by Leonardo da Vinci, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large, good quality image of work by notable artist. Pine^talk 09:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A beautiful image, wonderful background, excellent detail and by the master. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Awesome. —Eustress ^talk 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Exquisite. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leonardo da Vinci, Ginevra de' Benci, 1474-78.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 17:50:56 (UTC)

Reason

This is a high quality WPA poster

Articles in which this image appears

Household Service Demonstration Project

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Works Progress Administration. Digitised by the Library of Congress. Uploaded by Ras67 (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator --Guerillero | My Talk 17:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose support Quite small filesize (609 KB, probably because of poor digitalization), blurry, but good subject anyway. Brandmeister t 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the file size, not the pixel count, the measuring stick you are using? --Guerillero | My Talk 18:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the image is a bit small for a poster (that is probably smaller than the original dimensions). Brandmeister t 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Someone please take a clone tool and remove those smudge marks, cement-colored spots, etc. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poor quality, blurry and smudge spots. Clegs (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2012 at 18:56:55 (UTC)

Reason

Forgive me if I'm off-base with this nomination (it's my first time here), but I found this image on Flickr and find it both visually striking and leaving me wanting to know more about the subject, on top of the fact that I'm already interested as the page in question is my next FL nomination.

Articles in which this image appears

The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Ryan, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --– Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. At 1024 pixels wide, this image squeaks past the minimum technical requirement for a featured picture, but at that size we would have to ask for the main subject – Conan – to be sharp, and he just isn't. The digital display behind Conan introduces a distracting moiré pattern. The lighting on Conan is also doing something weird to his skin tone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor lighting, out of focus, distracting background, odd composition and technical quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor frame and poor lighting.Alborzagros (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, but come back here and try again. Take a look at the current Wikipedia:Featured Pictures to see what we like. :) Pine^talk 08:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wish I could... Visually interesting, but like some of the others have said, it's too blurry and a little on the small side. Keep trying, though :-) Clegs (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh well. I'm no expert on picture quality, but I'd like to learn. I have another in mind I'll nominate soon. Since this is a unanimous oppose, no need to keep it open until the 8th. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As suggested by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 11:54:15 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, beautiful painting.

Articles in which this image appears

The Death of Procris, Procris, Cefalo e Procri, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Thought to be Piero di Cosimo

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks a bit noisy and soft to me. Brandmeister t 23:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is cut off. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd, the one you've linked to is cut off as well. Darn.

Withdraw no point in continuing with a defective image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 22:16:13 (UTC)

Reason

This is a typical product shot isolated on white as you might get from a stock photo agency. This image is high-resolution, sharp and in focus from front to back. The angled profile shows off the steam plate as well as the handle, at the expense of the controls. We currently have no featured pictures of small domestic appliances and this category of images is poorly covered by WP/Commons. Btw, the soleplate has a textured speckle finish -- that's not noise. I hope you like it.

Articles in which this image appears

Clothes iron, Russell Hobbs.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Other

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator --Colin°^Talk 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: My only niggling issue is that the reflection is cut off. I get that you wanted it so it doesn't look like it's floating, but perhaps a short shadow would have achieved that effect. So I dunno.. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - OK, well as I said it was just a minor thing that I noticed and since no one else has an issue with it my qualm has been relieved. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good quality, high EV. Didn't notice the shadow until it was pointed out, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Clegs (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm missing where the reflection is cut off, so unless someone can point that out more specifically to me and the cut seems bad, I'm supporting. Pine^talk 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I have no issues with the reflection. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppprt per comments above --e^xtra999 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I love the way the angles converge near the tip. And that it's purple ... not a color we usually think of when we think of irons. And the detail. It's so crisp. I can see some CA along the edge near the top at the highest resolution but ... it's so slight that I think it would be impudent to base an oppose vote on it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I bought this very model and in this colour last year based soley on aesthetics. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Crisco 1492 and Daniel Case and Saffron Blaze's reasons. Alborzagros (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Electric steam iron.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 10:54:13 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, meets size criteria, good level of detail

Articles in which this image appears

Time Zone

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Phoenix B 1of3

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: some of the numbers (esp. around Nepal and Myanmar) are very hard to read. Any chance we could get a larger version? Does that work with PNGs? Clegs (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added alternative. This one is larger and more aesthetically pleasing. O.J. (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely alt much better than the original nomination. I think the date line could be better emphasized and labelled. It misses Antarctica, and does not indicate territories with daylight saving time. Oppose original for dizzying colour scheme, inconsistent font size and lack of detail due to limited resolution. --ELEKHH^T 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Diagrams like these are much better as SVGs. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been thinking for a while that some version of a timezone map needs featuring, but I don't think it's either of these for the various reasons already mentioned above, esp. Elekhh and Makeem. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt is out of date, with Samoa and American Samoa on different sides of the date line. Russia also changed something recently, IIRC, I'm not sure if this is correct here either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not out of date so far as I can see. Samoa and American Samoa are now on opposite sides of the date line. The Russian time zone changes of 2011 seem to all be up to date. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wow, I got that news story very wrong! My apologies. I'm gunna support the alt now, it's pretty good! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Askalan (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Original for poor use of colours and factual inaccuracies and missing information (Keeling Is.; Tokelau; Lord Howe, Norfolk, and Chatham Is.; Maldives; and BIOT ) alt for lacking Antarctica and not being SVG. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 02:59:36 (UTC)

Reason

Extremely high quality image of this aircraft in landing configuration which is prominently placed in the aircraft article infobox

Articles in which this image appears

Antonov An-124

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Sergey Kustov

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality, excellent representation of this aircraft. Clegs (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this could do with reframing to give it a bit more lead room. No land marks visible and a uniform background, so no problem with that. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV, high clarity, large photo. Pine^talk 11:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice image, good quality. Nice to see what it looks like before landing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV. Great picture. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075 in flight 28-Jul-2011.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 03:02:17 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and resolution, illustrative of both the main subject and his position in the KKK

Articles in which this image appears

Hiram Wesley Evans, Grand Wizard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

National Photo Company, restored by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gunna make a very unpopular move, against pretty much everything WP stands for, and oppose due to the subject. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering we promoted this image of lynching (very graphic, so it'll never be on the front page), I don't think this is a criteria. I agree that we should not look like we are supporting the KKK, but we are also an encyclopedia. The Klan is, unfortunately, something we cover. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the image also should not be on the main page if it gets promoted (like lynching and some other). Brandmeister t 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no issue with that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both on composition grounds. The background is too distracting. Essentially its a snapshot taken in 1925. Old yes, but a snapshot is still a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And the edit? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both. Sorry, but I don't see this as a very compelling photograph, with a strange severity in the focus contrast between the subject and the rather busy background (and the crop only calls more attention to that severity), nor does it have particular historical value, since it doesn't illustrate anything in particular happening. In defense of Adam above, I think the comparison to the lynching picture is not very apt; that picture shows an example of an event that played a huge role in American history; this one is just a guy in a costume. Chick Bowen 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:06:11 (UTC)

Reason

Per the other basketball nom.

Articles in which this image appears

Women's National Basketball League, Logan Thunder,

FP category for this image

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

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While this has good EV, it lacks impact. A tighter crop around the players might help - all the empty seats in the background detract from the action the photo shows (though they do sadly illustrate the difficulty elite female sports teams have attracting crowds). Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a go at a crop. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support crop Good quality and good EV (as noted above, the somewhat barren background sadly adds to the EV here). Nice work. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree--cropping out some of the dead space at the bottom might add to the BANG factor.
• Support crop -- Impressive, especially since you were close to 100 metres (330 ft) away from the action when taking this shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that far. EXIF says 25.3 meters ;). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd, it looked bigger. Either way, good shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support crop. Excellent action shot. Clegs (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is this during an actual game? I'm just wondering because I don't see any fans in the seats... Spencer^T♦C 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but most of the fans were on either side the court, rather than at the ends. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. By my count the arena wasn't even half full. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unclear what is going on in this photo and who the Thunder are playing against. —Eustress ^talk 15:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Only four support. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:04:16 (UTC)

Reason

This image is a little smaller than some others that I nominated (the bird was further away). However, this is the only confirmed sighting of this bird within Tasmanian waters, and this, and one other photo that I collected are the only images on commons of this species.

Articles in which this image appears

White-necked Petrel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good shot. Question should the black be a little darker, or is the bird more of a white and medium gray? Never seen this species (they don't make it to the eastern US), but to my eyes, the pictures looks like it could use a little more contrast. Clegs (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which bit of the plumage are you referring to? Apart from when breeding on a few islands, it is an open sea bird, and highly unlikely to be seen from land anywhere, not just the eastern US :). JJ Harrison (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good, at 1.7 MP is the resolution lower than your usual? Not that it matters. --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Almost an abstraction ... I caught myself wondering what company logo this was. Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with Daniel. The composition with the sea and the angle of the wings is very pleasing. --Colin°^Talk 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All reason above. Alborzagros (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pterodroma cervicalis - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 00:59:48 (UTC)

Reason

Prior to this cooperative bird I've only had one or two brief flybys on previous trips. It was once considered a subspecies of the Shy Albatross. Most of this species breed on the Bounty Islands, 670 km south east of New Zealand.

Articles in which this image appears

Salvin's Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support tail seems a little OOF, but otherwise I like this. Pine^talk 09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done. Clegs (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a question. Is that the original saturation? Interesting colour for the water... Of course, last time I was on the open(-ish) sea it was in the Sunda Strait which was more light teal in colour. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite natural, and mostly a reflection of the sky. Air pollution would most likely mean that Indonesia's sky is a different colour. I think the significant water depth difference (several kilometers vs tens of meters) could help a colour change too - it is easy to stir up sediment in shallow water. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. As I was between southern Kalianda and Sebuku, it was much shallower. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very good, has this been nominated before? --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but I have nominated one or two other images of different species with a similar composition before. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thalassarche salvini - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 09:24:56 (UTC)

Reason

Large image with good EV for the article, already featured on Commons, previous FP nomination failed by only a half vote.

Articles in which this image appears

Mezcala Bridge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 09:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator at commons. Tomer T (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: It's a very good shot. Well positioned and clear. ComputerJA (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The fisheye effect from the stitching is blowing it for me. Also, about a quarter of the image doesn't actually show the bridge. Crisco 1492(talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot. The extra on the left showing the area's scenery is part of what makes it so good, IMO. Clegs (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with Crisco, the fisheye effect distorts the view for me. —Eustress ^talk 02:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mezcala Bridge - Mexico edit1.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 5S, 2O Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 18:21:29 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, good portrait of high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Craig Johnson (author)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Guillom

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both edits Tomer T (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment White balance is too yellow and needs fixing. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an edit. Tomer T (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit My only remaining gripe is the noise levels. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit -- Interesting pose. Edit has better colouring and somehow seems to have less noise. The hand is out of focus, but no biggy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt-2. I adjusted the WB and applied some selective noise reduction. O.J. (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Either Edit with pref to Alt2. Good portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs)

• Oops. Yeah, that was me. Clegs (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Still a lot of noise on the underside of his hat. God Emperor^Talk 16:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Photo is from an awkward angle, there's a shadow over part of face from hat, head is positioned behind body since leaning back, blurry microphone in foreground is distracting —Eustress ^talk 02:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Only four supports. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:43:42 (UTC)

Reason

An attractive Flycatcher I spotted in a few places around Canberra. I didn't manage a shot until this male at the Botanic gardens though.

Articles in which this image appears

Leaden Flycatcher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all Has a snapshotty feel and continues the recent trend for over-exposure. [1] is an example of a better composition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird is white, not grey. The exposure is correct on a calibrated sRGB display. I was there. Said calibration includes a luminance level (how bright the display is) and ambient illuminance level (how bright the room is). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't even need to talk about the bird, there's plenty of evidence all over the picture that this is overexposed. Whatever your procedure was, that's one smotherbucking skewed histogram you've produced there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per PLW2. I don't feel it has a snapshot look to it, but it is slightly over exposed. Dusty777 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit1 uploaded. Adjusted levels per above concerns and added mild sharpening. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cranking up the saturation isn't going to help matters much. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't touch it if you'd care to actually read my image editing summary stated in three different places. --jjron (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check the saturations (if you know how), they are different. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't care, because as already stated four times, they weren't touched. It seems that both God and Adobe work in mysterious ways ... --jjron (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's just your technical understanding that's lacking. You don't have to actually manually change saturation in order for it to be affected by what you're doing. Think about it, do some experimentation. I know you won't, but don't come back later and say I didn't encourage you to try it for yourself. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're welcome. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1 after further consideration. --jjron (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 looks good. Pine^talk 10:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Good shot. Clegs (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit Per above Dusty777 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both with a preference on the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit but I do agree with PLW2 that the edit too saturated and the original is too bright (so am still hoping for edit 2). --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're all waiting for Mr. Harrison to redo it from RAW, are we not? Since you were happy enough to support a jpeg version, I've added an appropriate edit. However, the loss of detail on the breast can only be remedied from RAW, so I'm not going to support my own edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, and yes, for the record, even if we don't get a RAW-remix from JJ, I support Edit 2 as my preference amongst those avaiable. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Preference for Edit 1, Edit 2 is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Preference for Edit 2, Edit 1 is okay. Pine^talk 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit1. --jjron (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No preference. Clegs (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to break the deadlock, I'm going to say Prefer Edit 1. Clegs (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Original. :P JJ Harrison (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you still support the original only then I think you're supporting a non-promotion. :) If so we can reconsider. --jjron (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer edit 1 if it has to be one of them. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's rather unnecessary scaremongering. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Myiagra rubecula - Australian National Botanic Gardens edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2012 at 13:41:26 (UTC)

Reason

This image exemplifies triumph in adversity, a hardy plant flourishing in a crack in the rock. (This is my first nomination for Featured picture.)

Articles in which this image appears

Sedum anglicum

FP category for this image

plants

Creator

Cwmhiraeth

• Support as nominator --Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Blown highlights on the petals (they are very white, not textured) and the framing leaves a little to be desired. I'd want some more head room around the plant; right now it seems cut off at both the top and bottom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both per overexposure. Darkening the picture doesn't fix the loss of detail that happened when the original was overexposed. Clegs (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per above, and because the busy, detailed background prevents the viewer to distinguish the plant from the rock very well. Spencer^T♦C 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both good EV, and the background is OK because it shows this organism in its regular habitat according to the article, but the image lacks sharpness when viewed at full size. Pine^talk 08:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 05:07:40 (UTC)

Reason

large clear image, in multiple articles, good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Police vehicles in the United States and Canada, Police car, Police transport, Law enforcement, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, Ford Crown Victoria, Law enforcement in the United States, New York City Police Department, United States

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Cezary Piwowarski [[2]]

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 05:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This photo has been in some articles for more time than other articles, but I'm not expecting anyone to remove this image from enough of these articles to make a significant difference in EV. Pine^talk 05:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose good photo but not very striking. Plus it's arguable that the design schemes of police cars may as a whole be subject to copyright even if none of the individual elements would be. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being striking is not a requirement for Featured Pictures; please see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Regarding your concern about copyright, wouldn't it be illegal to take photos of lots and lots of vehicles if that was the case? Pine^talk 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". That's what the FPC say. While I find this to be an effective illustration, certainly enough to be a quality image on Commons, I don't find it compelling. It's just an NYPD car on the street. That's all it wants to tell me, and all it can.

I see others have clarified for you that I did not mean the design of the car itself—as one of the few people on Wikipedia who seems to fully understand our fair use policy, I'm fully aware of the "useful articles" distinction—but what is called the livery of the vehicle (I knew there was a word for it!). Yes, I'm also aware that most of the other elements save the department shield are simple geometric shapes and strings of text that do not constitute a full sentence. However ... consider that this free image I took later became the basis for this copyrighted magazine cover even though the latter arguably has less claim to any individually copyrighted elements. And arguably, painting a police car this way makes it a three-dimensional public work.

But, since there seems to be no U.S. copyright case law I can yet find on the copyright status of vehicle livery with a mix of copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements (French law may be stricter), I won't push this any further. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • See also [[3]] Pine^talk 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, mainly on technical grounds. There is a post blocking the tyre of the car and the background is rather busy. Legal considerations are that it may need to have it's license plate blurred as it is still on the road and the design scheme mentioned above. Most cars, if they have a plain paint job, probably don't apply. However, a specific paint design may be copyrightable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand how an elaborate paint job might be copyrightable. However, if paint jobs on police cars are copyrightable, it seems to me that the absurd result is that no photos of police cars would be permitted on Wikipedia. The same would go for uniforms of many kinds of private and government workers. Although I'm not a lawyer, I would think that the design is not sufficiently creative to qualify for copyright protection. Pine^talk 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the copyright. The painting is constituted of a blue line and some text, like POLICE (it would be PD-Textlogo, below the threshold of originality) and a logo, which is de minimis. I don't think based on those elements the composition in itself is copyrightable. If you don't share those views, you're free to open a DR in Commons, to settle the matter. --Dereckson (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a note that I've also requested comments about the copyright from administrators Moonriddengirl and J Milburn. If others would also like to express views please feel free. Pine^talk 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that I said "may". My oppose is mainly for the technical issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for clarifying. Since there seems to be concern about the copyright I think that it's reasonable to try to get a definitive resolution. I understand why there is concern although my feeling is that in this particular case the paint job isn't copyrightable. Pine^talk 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aside from the logo, I agree. As noted by Dereckson, in this particular case the logo is probably de minimis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Failing any definitive (and unlikely) evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest all further votes should simply focus on the image and not concern themselves with the copyright mumbo-jumbo. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Short answer: It's fine. Long answer: IANAL. That said, I think it's alright. Obviously, the car itself is not copyrightable, while the logo is. The paint-job, theoretically, could be. The logo is quite clearly de minimis, and so its inclusion is fine. The paint-job isn't, but it seems simple enough that it would be PD anyway. (To pre-empt, freedom of panorama does not apply here at all.) If there are any issues that could come up here, it is the inclusion of the numberplate, not copyright. There will also presumably be laws about misrepresenting the police (y'know, implying endorsement, suggesting that you are a police officer, that sort of thing) but providing that this is used appropriately in context, that shouldn't be a problem. J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not gonna argue the EV here, but there's too many distracting elements (post in front of car, very busy background) for it to be a FP. Clegs (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 11:31:26 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, interesting pose. We rarely have free posters for new or at least recent films, so this is a nice breath of fresh air.

Articles in which this image appears

The Hooping Life, Amy Goldstein

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Amy Goldstein

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: She's really noisy. Does that have an impact on quality considerations, or is that moot because the original is that way? Clegs (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have an issue with it. It's better than the old-school way of doing these posters, like on File:Deep Throat poster 2.jpg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder whether it's an intentional effect. Brandmeister t 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Image noise is a hurdle for me, and since I can't determine whether it is intentional or just poorly done, I must vote on the default, which is the standard FP guideline of no image noise or graininess. —Eustress ^talk 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Eustress. Pine^talk 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As with the "Flying Fish poster", this is not a scan but the original poster artwork direct from some designer's PC. The poster is dire. The photo quality is dire. The article this image appears in is dire and appears to contain nothing but the blurb from the back of the DVD. I suspect WP is being used to promote this film. Rather than being "a nice breath of fresh air", something smells here. Colin°^Talk 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Entirely possible, but (assuming the film is eventually released) any possible promotion on behalf of the filmmaker is actually beneficial to the encyclopedia. Images, especially posters and whatnot which are the same no matter where they are published, are generally more NPOV than text. I wouldn't mind more people with high quality posters or other works donating them to the encyclopedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand your "more NPOV than text"? The poster contains cheery-picked review comments, as all posters do. That's as POV as you can get. Colin°^Talk

• Those are text, not pure images. Note that I said "generally". Images like File:Poster - Gone With the Wind 01.jpg are fairly NPOV in my opinion. For a POV image, we can look at different poses of Barack Obama. A supporter might like his official portrait or one of him working, while a detractor will look for a picture of him scratching his behind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't think that is all noise, I think some of that has to do with the background of the poster being textured. I think the poster looks very cool and different than your average everyday movie poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrh180 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is a poor quality poster, apparently made by the film's director for heaven's sake, of an independent, barely feature length documentary of no particular note which will most likely not be shown across any cinema chain in the world, uploaded by a user (possibly the director seeing as how she likes to take a hands on approach to the promotion of her film) who created their/her account purely to write articles about the film in question and it's director/herself (which borders on the blatantly promotional side of resumé-like and also has an unhealthy number of external links), to link to these two articles from as many related articles as possible and to upload this image and one of the documentary's director/herself. Do we really want to indiscriminately promote any movie poster that gets uploaded to Wikipedia just because it is a movie poster and therefore somehow "notable"? God Emperor^Talk 19:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 20:29:23 (UTC)

Reason

Nice capture of the ceremonial entrance made by competitors before professional wrestling matches. Would be first pro wrestling FP. Borderline on pixel threshold but still good resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

John Cena, professional wrestling, WWE Tribute to the Troops

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Alexander Vaughn, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - His face is not like John Cena. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too generic to have much EV for wrestling topics (muscley guy in T-shirt, could be anybody anywhere - you have to already know something about the subject to be able to place it in a wrestling context). And as Mehran said, the face is too distorted to allow recognition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this image is below the Wikipedia:Featured Picture Criteria recommended minimum of 1000 pixels on at least one side of the image, and the face is distorted. Pine^talk 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no excuse for having a pic of a pro wrestler and not showing his hands. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what he's doing with his hands, just look at his shirt for a hint —Eustress ^talk 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more of a shame that we can't see them then! J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Too small and chopped off, per above essentially. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Cutting off the arms (ignoring the facial expression) is too much, particularly for a guy like Cena who is so famous for having nearly horse-like arms. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 19:19:46 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, great shot

Articles in which this image appears

Griffith Observatory, Griffith Park, John C. Austin, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Hollywood, List of museums in Los Angeles, California

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Caption should probably be more succinct, per WIAFP:7a (see also CAP#Succinctness). —Eustress ^talk 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've shortened it. Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Caption issued resolved, excellent photo —Eustress ^talk 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Didn't realize it until reading JJ's comment below... he's right, the camera is focused on the houses in the background and not on the observatory. Still an impressive picture, but FP criterion 1 says the main subject must be in focus. —Eustress ^talk 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That is stunning! At full zoom, it's a bit soft, but still passable. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah ok, the focus plane is out. I kind of noticed this the first time, but didn't put 2 and 2 together. Reluctant oppose. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment tree to the right of the door (as it appear in the pic) appears strangly blured. Stitching error?©Geni 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I agree with Aaadddaaammm about softness. Pine^talk 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality. Clegs (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory. The image quality is very average compared to most of our landscape shots. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wasn't particularly drawn to this when it was nominated but I didn't want to be the first to oppose. I guess the the reason the Observatory isn't sharp is because of what JJ said? It's a shame it's off-center too. The Astronomers Monument should have been dead center in the middle of the door. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the monument was centered in front of the door, we might not be able to see the door as well as we do here. I like the angle. Pine^talk 08:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment from the photographer Interestingly I just happened upon FP today for the first time in ages and saw this so I thought I'd address a couple of points that have been raised incorrectly. I would say I never figured this would be an FP or I would probably have nominated it back when I was a regular here, I uploaded it for its enc value. JJ says ' I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory." Well, per the image caption, this is not cropped from a larger image at all, quite the contrary, it is a stitch of four quarters in landscape format. Secondly, the camera did not focus on the houses behind, it focused on the observatory, however as this was shot with a 20D and a then new 300 F4L, this predated Live View, and hence critical manual focus, and the lens/body combination back focused as I discovered shortly after. The 20D was retired soon after and I never worried about it again. Like I said anyway, I uploaded it for its enc rather than its photographic merit, but it has amazingly stood the test of time in the article and numerous templates and infobox mosaics. Mfield (Oi!) 03:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2012 at 13:54:40 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, interesting image, good EV, underrepresented area (Sri Lankan film)

Articles in which this image appears

Flying Fish (film)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Sanjeewa Pushpakumara

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice scan job too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think this is a scan. This looks like the original artwork received direct from the film producers. So what are we judging here? The photograph? -- that's been extensively manipulated? A movie poster? -- it looks pretty average and standard. Yes, technically the image is very high quality, as one would expect of an original. Any advice? Colin°^Talk 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just like File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg, we're judging the quality of the reproduction. Like works of fine art, such as the Mona Lisa or The Starry Night, we should not judge movie posters based on the design of the poster itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference is that the pieces of fine art you've cited are notable by themselves. This movie poster is not. Only the movie is. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't an issue with the above-linked posters. The only thing with higher EV would be the film itself, and technical limitations prohibit us from hosting high quality films (hard to fit it in 100mb) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a "reproduction". This is the original. So I'm not judging how well someone has scanned the image and retouched it to remove creases and coffee stains. Or how well someone has photographed a work of art in a gallery. We're judging a non-notable movie poster. Since it is an original, output from the computer of the poster designer, of course it is going to have flawless crisp writing and a high technical quality. Assuming this is a still from the film, then it illustrates the film to some degree - though the writing and the vignetting detract from that purpose, failing the "avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" if film-illustration is the EV. If displaying the movie poster is the EV then I guess it is as good as you could get. If we're judging the poster as a work of art/design then this is very unoriginal. So unoriginal, in fact, that the Film poster article could use it to illustrate the standard features of a modern movie poster. Colin°^Talk 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have decided to oppose. This has lower EV than a still from the film. A film poster is an advertisement and this is a recent/current film. Rather than being a gift we should welcome, I'm concerned that such images are being donated to WP for promotional purposes. I don't think the FPC should promote a current advert as that is just a backdoor way of getting free advertising on WP. I'm going to create a discussion on the FPC talk page about this. Colin°^Talk 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportgood quality as to nice scan. Alborzagros (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support the softness and brightness of the people in the image is done in a way that doesn't impress me, but this has good EV and the rest of the image is sharp. Pine^talk 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't understand the comparison to File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg. Those weren't promoted just because they're good scans; they're also good examples of movie posters. This is a mediocre example of a movie poster. There's nothing interesting in its design or in the underlying photograph. I don't understand Crisco's argument that we shouldn't judge the design. Why not? We judge a photograph in two ways: its encyclopedic utility in representing the subject and its aesthetic quality. So the same applies here. Chick Bowen 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, EV outweighs poor posing and whatnot (assuming the poster is not completely ruined by being too dark etc.) I think that 30s to 50s era posters were more aesthetically pleasing, but times change. If you think that aesthetics is more important than EV, I cannot force you to change your mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that standards have dropped that much, particularly for independent films; for example, I think Errol Morris's posters (like this one and this one) are often very effectively and innovatively designed. I salute you for finding movie posters under free licenses and you should definitely keep trying, but so far, these are not good posters, even by today's standards. Chick Bowen 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2012 at 23:09:40 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrative value, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Tide pool, Biocoenosis, Ecosystem, Body of water, Intertidal ecology, Marine biology

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not a vote yet. Am I seeing things, or does the focus look just a bit goofy? Clegs (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Focus appears to be a little bit off and photo is not a clear illustration of a tide pool to me -- looks like any underwater shot, could be anywhere. File:Porto Covo February 2009-2.jpg seems more instructive as an example of a tide pool. —Eustress ^talk 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per not quite in focus. Clegs (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree File:Porto Covo February 2009-2.jpg can be a FP illustrating well a tide pool, but I only added it to the article two days ago, so I'll wait with it... Tomer T (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 00:48:46 (UTC)

Reason

The first nomination for this image closed a while back with 6 supports (including nominator's), 4 opposes, a weak oppose and a neutral. Numerous alternate versions were uploaded (rather late in the voting period) which fixed several of the perceived problems (unnatural background colouring and beak too close to edge of frame). Crucially, all of the opposing votes were added before the first alternate image was added, and once the first alternate image was added the only votes cast were in favour. I was wondering if the result might have been different had the problems been fixed sooner and thought the best way to find out was to renominate.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey Heron

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

God Emperor

• Support alt 2 as nominator --God Emperor^Talk 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like the photo, but I still think my edit from the previous nom (Alt-1) is better. There are some serious noise and gradient issues in the background of your new version. However, the level of detail in the bird itself is much higher thanks to the higher resolution. There is definitely potential in this picture. O.J. (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The added EV seems to be in retraction of the neck; however, a before-and-after composite would be better to illustrate this. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The image can easily be placed next to an one with a Grey Heron with neck extended for that purpose (as it is in the article). Making the image a composite would just restrict it's use. God Emperor^Talk 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we've had noms like this before where the images were promoted as a set. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why did the background change colour so much in the first place? Was it a saturation adjustment? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my edit the hue and saturation of the background are adjusted. O.J. (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you not change the lightness as well? - I did in my edit in trying to get the same colour as you. I will redo the edit to sort out the noise when I have time. God Emperor^Talk 13:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original and edit 2, neutral to edit 1. The original (and now, edit 2) gets the realistic color that I was looking for. Clegs (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt 2. I resolved the noise issues and didn't resize at all this time. If people think it is too soft at full resolution I could downsize this to 2/3 like the original. God Emperor^Talk 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2012 at 16:09:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, good EV. The stamp is more than 150 years old, which is quite interesting.

Articles in which this image appears

Postal currency

FP category for this image

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

Creator

United States Post Office.

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I might ask why there seems to be an arbitrary jump from the original background to (255,255,255) white though. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I intentionally removed the background around the postal note. A few years ago, my Confederate 100 Dollar banknote was a Featured Picture Candidate on the Commons. [4] I was asked to remove the background and closely crop the image on the Confederate banknote. This 5 cent note is currently a Featured Picture Candidate on the Commons. [5] I would appreciate support there. I have scans of 3 cent and 25 cent Fractional Currency that I will upload soon. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good quality. Clegs (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The portrait of Jefferson looks a little washed out compared to the rest of the certificate. Is this as it was originally or is it due to wear or scanning? —Eustress ^talk 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did another scan with Photoshop Elements and lowered the min-tones. (Histogram adjustment, mid-tone from 1.2 to 1.0.) I uploaded a tiff of the front. File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 front 720b.tif This is closer to the actual note. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as uploader -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given the age, this looks good. Pine^talk 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support InverseHypercube 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have uploaded the tiff files for the front and back of the note. File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_front_720a.tif and File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_back_720a.tif I also uploaded tiff files made with different scanner settings, the mid-tones were darkened. (Photoshop Elements, Histogram adjustment, mid-tone from 1.2 to 1.0.) File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_front_720b.tif and File:US_Postal_Currency_5_cent_1862_back_720b.tif -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 08:42:47 (UTC)

Reason

Really high educational value in the article Bread, a great set for an encyclopedia

Articles in which this image appears

Bread

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Chmee2

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wouldn't a video be simpler? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Crisco makes a good point. I would add that if we're going to go with photographs, we should take care to eliminate some of the redundancy in this set, e.g. 9 and 10, and also how we keep looking back at those shelves with only minor changes. I think shelf shots should only be used to indicate waiting time, and they should be taken from the same angle to allow focusing on essential differences. To give another specific example, seeing the flour being applied is better than seeing the floury loaves on the shelf, and makes that second shot redundant. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• omment Each of these needs a detailed caption in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Each image alone is pretty average, and together it just amplifies the averageness, sorry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Focus issues throughout (especially the picture taking bread out of the oven--focus is behind the oven). Like the idea of a video. Any chance you could get back in there with a decent video camera? Clegs (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator is User:Chmee2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hi. First of all, thanks for this nomination, I am happy and proud of it! However, I agree with "opponents" that these images are not technically the best one and they do not fit standards for FP (on Commons, I am not sure, what are standards here). On the other hand, it was really hard place for taking good images and when I checked my private gallery on Commons I took only one Quality image there. I would like to answer several questions. Firstly, I believed that photos are more educative than video, because they highlight the main points of this procedure. For this reason I took mirror camera with me, not video camera. Unfortunately, I am not able go there one more time in the near feature and if yes, there will be again the same problem. This was not baking museum but real bakery, where everything has to be done quick. There is no place for tripod or some long preparation for photographing :/ And just for fan, there are images from more procedures, see Bread roll, Kifli, or cs:Veka. And of course! I will be really happy when you find some articles on en.wiki, where to add images from Czech bakery :) Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 08:21:56 (UTC)

Reason

Good illustrative value for the article Yellowstone fires of 1988, good quality for a 1988 photo

Articles in which this image appears

Yellowstone fires of 1988

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Jim Peaco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's really foggy, I know it's not possible to take a clear shot in such place, but this is too obscure (esp. it's not easy to understand what's there in the background?!). We can find more clear images from the fired places. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foggy? Isn't it smoke? Wouldn't you expect that from smouldering things after a fire? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologize, I meant "Smoke"! As I said above it's very obscure, please compare this image with some other similar ones. ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Doesn't show the fires themselves, although the best composition would include both fires and firefighting efforts. Brandmeister t 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A better caption about what the firefighters are doing would help with this image's EV. Pine^talk 08:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Doing mop up" isn't very explanatory. Can you be more specific? Pine^(talk) 22:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 03:55:22 (UTC)

Reason

Meets WP:WIAFP criteria to be a featured picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Tom Chapin, Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for Children

FP category for this image

/People/Entertainment

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Albacore (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Something weird is going on with the colours on the face. It reminds me of trying to correct for the colour balance of a sodium vapour lamp, but I am only guessing. The lighting is quite hard too, and the image isn't super sharp. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Light on face is too harsh. —Eustress ^talk 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 02:34:31 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful pic with varied EV

Articles in which this image appears

Swimming float, swimming lessons, human swimming, organic chemistry

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Tommy Wong, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 02:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support -- Love it! Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose. Highlights and CA make the focus point difficult to pick out. Also not sure how this has EV for swimming lessons or swimming, as its pretty obvious she's doing neither. Clegs (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Great for the family album or a stock photo agency, good for Commons, but lacks EV for WP. Per Clegs she's clearly neither swimming nor having a swimming lesson (and lets forget the EV for organic chemistry). Re the first listed article I'm highly dubious on the swimming float usage too; the very shallow DOF used makes it hard to say for sure, but she looks to be laying in very shallow water, thus not actually floating, or more to the point not using the kickboard as a flotation aid; her body posture and way the swim suit is laying would support this. And as a final kicker for EV, that's not how you're meant to use a kickboard. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose pretty but EV is not compelling. Pine^talk 08:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose'. Sorry, nice picture but Jjron makes good points, and the girl appears to be falling asleep - just not feeling the EV. God Emperor^Talk 11:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 13:27:02 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV. Attractive aesthetically as well.

Articles in which this image appears

The Mummy (1932 film)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of Universal Pictures, attributed to Karoly Grosz

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great quality scan! —Eustress ^talk 15:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great colors and detail. High EV. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are a couple of green stripes: one through the writing and her dress and a shorter one to the left of the bottom of her dress. Are these on the original or did the scanner create them. If the latter, could this be fixed. Colin°^Talk 10:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look at them. If I decide that they are scanning artefacts, hopefully I can remove them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda sick of looking at film posters in GIMP today though... this morning was dedicated to To Be or Not to Be and I'm not entirely pleased with the results. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Scanning artifact removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Classic. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks great --Guerillero | My Talk 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The poster is attributed to Karoly Grosz (the artist not the politician) and for a while held the record for the most expensive movie poster ever sold. The colours look a bit off in this version. Yomangani^talk 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Christies' restoration image for comparison (though they can't keep the colours the same between the two images). Yomangani^talk 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, the pre-restored version is near the colours we have here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't both of the others appear to have much deeper greens? Compare his hands for example. Also the Christies' images have more purple in her dress and in the "curtain" behind "It comes to life!". Since there are only two complete copies known to exist we don't have much of a comparison set and it could be that this image has the right colour balance and the other reproductions are off, but I wanted to check you didn't alter the colours and that they they look similar to your original source. Yomangani^talk 18:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, haven't touched the colours. The only modifying I did was removing a slight green scanning artifact after this was nominated. The original upload is the same as the file on the LA library's site. (only two copies? Oh my) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Beautiful -- Scewing (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:The Mummy 1932 film poster.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 03:07:34 (UTC)

Reason

Historic image of the way computations used to be done

Articles in which this image appears

Keypunch, United States Census, Herman Hollerith

FP category for this image

History/USA History

Creator

Unknown or not provided (image from National Archives and Records Administration)

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 03:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image page caption needs work. I don't think punching the cards turned the data into statistics - it just allowed a computer to do so. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've updated the image page caption accordingly. —Eustress ^talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support High quality for such an old picture. Support only if caption edit is used. Clegs (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree that it's high quality, nicely composed and has historical value. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Clegs and Mathew. I thought it's 1940s or 1950s. Brandmeister t 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support per Chick Bowen. The date span in the source is indeed large. Brandmeister t 19:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Great image! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --jjron (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good black and white photo with EV Pine^talk 09:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is no information about when the photo was taken. National Archives website says 1890-1950. For this to have any EV we need at least the year. O.J. (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's using the Hollerith keypunch, which was only used to tabulate the 1890 census; but the caption says "c. 1890" because we don't know the exact date. I think that's reasonable and still very informative. —Eustress ^talk 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although she's using the pantograph keypunch from the 1890 census I'd guess that it is staged for the photograph and was taken much later. The cards she is using aren't the 1890 cards and her clothes and hairstyle aren't from 1890s either. Maybe some fashion expert will appear to date it more closely. Yomangani^talk 15:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't vouch for hairstyles, but the cards look correct to period. There's a smaller reading board at the top of the machine and the actual punch card under the operator's hand -- both indicative of the 1890 census (see Columbia University article). (Note: The Early Office Museum discusses this photo, not indicating a date but saying it is the machine used to tabulate the 1890 census.) If you're concerned this photo may have been staged later, perhaps we can modify the caption accordingly (e.g., "The Hollerith keypunch was used to tabulate the 1890 United States Census—the first time a census was tabulated by machine."). However, I doubt this is staged, since it appears to be an authentic work environment: paper punch outs lie on the desk and a coworker appears at a desk in the background. —Eustress ^talk 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you compare the reading card template in this picture to the 1890 template photo in the Columbia University article you can see they are are different; this one has several short lines of punch holes while in the 1890 one they are all the same length, so she's almost certainly not tabulating the 1890 census. I don't think staging precludes some dressing of the set, and it may even be an authentic photo of somebody working on a punch card using a Hollerith keypunch, but I'd be very surprised if this photo was taken any time close to 1890. To be on the safe side I'd adjust the caption as you suggested (if you are sure that no other census had been tabulated using a machine). Yomangani^talk 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Caption updated —Eustress ^talk 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support e^xtra999 (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV, great quality picture for its age. Dusty777 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose without some kind of solid indication of date. I've spent a lot of time looking at a lot of photographs from 1850 to 1950. I've never seen an indoor photograph this sharp from before about 1920. Not to mention, as noted above, her hair and clothes--but also, look at the furniture, look at the half-frosted-glass, half-wood cubicle partition in front of her. Look at the lighting, too--the sun is shining in from the back windows, hence the shadow on our side of the desk in the background. What is shining on the subject's face is a high-quality electric photographer's light, not an Edison bulb. This is not a 19th-century photograph. My guess would be 1930s. If it's featurable anyway, fine. But those above supporting because of "high quality for such an old picture" might want to reexamine this. For me, if we could get some information about what exactly we're looking at, I'd support, but without it, I don't feel able to. Chick Bowen 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The census form she has on the roll is not the official 1940 census form [6], but it is so close that it is either a prototype or a variation, so the date must be well after 1930 (late 30s or after). Unfortunately the title is blurred under the shadow of the bottom of the wrapped around form so I can't read it, but if anybody has one of those zoom/enhance programs from CSI or Blade Runner we should be in business. Yomangani^talk 01:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The machine is from the 1890 census, but the photo is not. Women did not dress like this in 1890; as noted previously, the hair and dress are wrong. The earlier guess of 1940s or 1950s seems reasonable to me. There is another photo of the same woman in the same dress (here). There, a second woman is next to her, with a machine from a different census. That web page suggests this was a demonstration of old machines, which seems reasonable to me. --Beth63 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice sleuthing. Whether or not is was staged later, I think the photo still conveys significant EV for the articles listed in the nomination, and the alternate caption helps ensure the photo is viewed in an accurate and informative context. Cheers —Eustress ^talk 00:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the date as a showstopper. It would be a slightly staged situation whether taken in 1890 or 1950, and one can debate over whether they really would have used citizens' filled in census forms for the photo-shoot. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: date estimate has been changed to "circa 1940" per discussion at Commons:File_talk:Card_puncher_-_NARA_-_513295.jpg; further discussion there is welcome -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:24:49 (UTC)

Reason

This image captures the wing feather iridescence well.

Articles in which this image appears

Common Bronzewing

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The bird is excellent, but I find that hugely OOF area taking up the bottom sixth of the picture more than a little offputting. I wish we could crop it out, but it goes too close to the bird's feet to remove it all; I wonder if it's worth trying to crop in closer all round however to remove some of it, but keep the picture balanced? --jjron (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt 1. I find the original too bright, and the contrast between the breast of the bird and the background is not great as a result. God Emperor^Talk 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, I just saw the conversation over the Leaden Flycatcher. You're not going to be happy about this are you JJ? God Emperor^Talk 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. :P. A symmetric histogram isn't indicative of correct exposure - one would never have to use exposure compensation on the camera if it was. To be frank, this particular edit looks terrible, it has way too much contrast. I think maybe the original could do with a tad more contrast in this case. So I will have a go at a crop/levels. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alt 1, Weak Support Original and Alt 2. Alt 1 way to contrasty. the original and alt 2 are better, but the breast of the bird seems to be slightly overexposed. Clegs (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all the bright green background is blinding me. Pine^(talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2. Edit 2 looks best to me. O.J. (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all due to issues with brightness (original, edit 2) and saturation (edit 1 especially). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 12:08:43 (UTC)

Reason

This is one of the only pictures of him with his closest living relative, it's a nice historical image.

Articles in which this image appears

Caroline Kennedy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Cecil W. Stoughton

• Support as nominator --777 — 12:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not convinced by the EV. I can see other photos of her with her father, eg [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support All other aforementioned images are black-and-white. This one has a good composition in particular, but perhaps would benefit from denoisement. Brandmeister t 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Has something been done to her like photoshopping? She looks like an Auton. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Other things too. Her head is obviously lopsided, so not the best angle to see her; half her face is covered by the white frilly thing; the blanket's covering her body so we can't even imagine how big or old she is; The quality of the image isn't good enough for my liking either. There's a green tint across her face and it's just too grainy. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Cute snapshot, snapshot with some historical value, but still just a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:31:21 (UTC)

Reason

As I was leaving for a day's photography, I spotted a Diamond Firetail drinking from a puddle on the other side of my hire car. I managed to get my camera out without flushing it, but just as I had the camera pointing at it around the car. I waited in the car for quite a while before setting off. I was a little annoyed that I'd wasted valuable haze-free morning, but the delay turned out to be lucky - this eagle was waiting just outside the driveway, in a tree, where I was staying.

Articles in which this image appears

Wedge-tailed Eagle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Support. Good shot. Clegs (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Neutral. The beak didn't bug me at first, but is bugging me more and more. Clegs (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The beak is one solid blown highlight. Dusty777 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, not that it made an appreciable difference. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- I like the bird but that beak is bothering me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose That upshoot of the tree branch on the left-hand side spoils the photo for me -- crowds and draws my eye away from the subject. —Eustress ^talk 07:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:22:21 (UTC)

Reason

This isn't the best angle to show the wing plumage - File:Diomedea exulans in flight 2 - SE Tasmania.jpg is better for that. However, I think this picture really communicates the wingspan of this species and albatrosses in general.

Articles in which this image appears

Wandering Albatross, Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW this image of a Wandering Albatross is already featured. I guess we could say this one complements it (they're quite different poses/angles). --jjron (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Almost need to use the wide template for that wingspan:) Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Yet another excellent shot. Clegs (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support EV is so-so when we already have Diomedea_exulans_-_SE_Tasmania.jpg as a featured picture, but this is a good shot. Pine^(talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Nice action shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even more impressive when magnified! —Eustress ^talk 05:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not one of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• At any rate, this species has a circumpolar distribution, it isn't really an Australian subject specifically. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:53:43 (UTC)

Reason

I was looking for a break from film posters (my morning was all posters) and I discovered these little gems. The two have an interesting back story: after outcry over his nude (La maja desnuda), the painter Francisco Goya went ahead and painted another one with clothes entitled La maja vestida, rather than overpainting his earlier work. La maja desnuda is said to have the first clear depiction of female pubic hair in Western art.

Articles in which this image appears

La maja desnuda, La maja vestida, Francisco Goya, and more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Francisco Goya

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a kind of stamp on the right cheek of Maja desnuda. Brandmeister t 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That same stamp appears a couple of times in the upper left of the second painting as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Yes, it says MUSEO NACIONAL DEL PRADO, I believe. The stamp isn't on the image on the website of the museum, where the description page indicates this image came from. This image is also brighter than the image on the website - are you sure the source is stated correctly? God Emperor^Talk 14:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the uploader neglected to mark his source when uploading. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure how that follows. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I.e. I could not find exact replicas online, so his/her source may be down. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the image was uploaded in 2010. Since it's held at the MNdP, the source link points there, the watermark points there, don't you think it's likely that it came from there? They may have simply changed their watermarking policy in the 16 months or so since it was uploaded. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps. Do you have a link to a script that allows one to download such images? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Scratch that. Apparently doing the same thing over again can bring a different result. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose until the stamps are removed. Clegs (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll work on it tomorrow my time (UTC+7) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now. Brandmeister t 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are still (at my count) 5 stamps in the desnuda and 4 in the vestida. Also, if I'm nitpicky, you can see a bit of white left over from the stamp on the cheek of the desnuda on the line between face and hair, though I wouldn't notice anything wrong if I wasn't looking for it. God Emperor^Talk 22:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that 7 on the desnuda. The stamps seem to go regularly in horizontal lines and I think there are places where stamps have been removed badly previously. To be honest I don't think this will ever be satisfactorarily cleaned up so I'm going to
    Oppose. God Emperor^Talk 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got them all. Don't forget to purge your cache before looking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still one on the corner of the pillow along the right hand side of the vestida. God Emperor^Talk 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also on her dress above her left breast and below her right breast. God Emperor^Talk 01:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got those and the image is currently uploading (my connection sucks, so it may take up to 10 minutes. I have to go deal with applying for my masters, but if I missed any I'll pick this up when I come back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Good work. Leaning towards support now, but just one more thing - what are the dark lines along the right side of both images. Are they in the original painting or a product of the reproduction? God Emperor^Talk 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean are they shadows or regions that had previously been covered up by a frame and so less damaged by light? God Emperor^Talk 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's on the original image here. Looking at this I would suggest the area is generally covered by a frame. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This also implies that a frame may be there (although this isn't the same image, you can see that a frame was removed to make the scan of this image. I'm assuming the museum has an SOP). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pretty neat as a pair, plus individual EV —Eustress ^talk 06:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support God Emperor^Talk 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support famous paintings. Beautiful. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Eustress, they are ineed a nice pair. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Goya Maja naga2.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Promoted File:Goya Maja ubrana2.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 15:57:28 (UTC)

Reason

A picture showing a cricketer who has just been bowled, good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Bowled, Dismissal (cricket)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Lemonlolly

• Support as nominator --Harrias ^talk 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think this is too bad, but I would have preferred to have had the bowler included too so we know where the ball comes from and how. I'll reserve judgement for now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose per above. If I didn't watch cricket (yes, I'm weird, I'm an American who watches cricket), I would have no clue what was happening. Needs the bowler in picture. Clegs (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's the best picture of a cricketer I've seen so far, but I still don't get what being "bowled" is (since I don't know much about cricket). I can't tell what's happening in the photo. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I can appreciate that without a baseline knowledge of cricket, this isn't as valuable as I thought. As a cricket fan (and someone playing in this match) I obviously knew what was happening, and it didn't even cross my mind it wasn't as obvious to other people. Does it have any value merely as a dismissal? I'm guessing not, but worth checking! Harrias ^talk 21:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments I'm not too familiar with your guidelines and criteria, but I'll point out that this photo could usefully illustrate a number of articles about cricket kit, including Whites (cricket), Batting gloves, Batting helmet and Stumps. It also shows the difference between the pitch (the light coloured short-mown grass he's standing on) and the outfield, which people can find difficult to distinguish from text and presumably have articles I'm too lazy to look for. The very dark strip is probably a practice strip, possibly with an artificial surface. We probably have an article on batting stance or technique, but I wouldn't use this image, except perhaps as an example of how not to bat. Incidentally, the photo is an excellent cricket picture - because the bowler isn't in it. By which I mean that because the chap 22 yards away can't be seen, there's some great detail visible, including the batsman's despairing look, the ball sharply in focus and even both of the bails (one on top of the left hand stump, the other is in the top left hand corner, flying dramatically out of shot). --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (basically support) This discussion is going in the favour that there should have been a bowler in shot. However, I agree with Dweller fully, a bowler in shot, which could have meant 22 yards in picture, could have lessened the EV. The focus is as what the nominator says, it displays the every detail of a batsman being bold, the stumps is in focus, the batsman and the equipments. e^xtra999 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No wow factor, not particularly revealing to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 21:14:19 (UTC)

Reason

This picture was nominated for a featured picture before, but I feel it deserves a second chance due to it's usefulness in the articles in which it is displayed.

Articles in which this image appears

Ontario Highway 401, Toronto, street light, long-exposure photography, lighting, controlled-access highway

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology

Creator

Kenny Louie (kennymatic on Flickr)

• Support as nominator --Haljackey (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to limited EV for the articles listed. Were it not for the articles mentioned here I wouldn't know that this were Toronto or Highway 401. I wouldn't know that it's controlled-access either, except I saw the other (now withdrawn) nomination. In lighting it's being used to highlight the high-mast street lamps (which happen to be the smallest-sized lighted parts in the photo), rather than the more obvious lights from the vehicles or buildings. Nor it doesn't really show how well they light the road in street light because of all the other light from the cars and buildings, although I suppose there's not really a time when this road is quiet enough for that. EV for Long-exposure photography is good, but it's not exceptional and there are others that are equally as good or better at Commons:Category:Automobile light trails. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral the only place where this looks like it has good value is Long-exposure photography. Pine^(talk) 22:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 12:49:50 (UTC)

• 
  Alicia McCormack Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Ashleigh Southern Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Bronwen Knox Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Dalibor Maslan assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Gemma Beadsworth Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Glencora Ralph Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Gregory McFadden coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Hannah Buckling Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Holly Lincoln-Smith Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Isobel Bishop Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Jane Moran Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Kate Gynther Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Kelsey Wakefield Australian women's national water polo player
• 
  Melissa Rippon Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Nicola Zagame Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Rowena Webster Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Ryan Moar assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Sophie Smith Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Victoria Brown Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Zoe Arancini Australian women's national water polo player.

Reason

The pictures are high quality (all 1000px or above) and as a set help to give an idea as to who plays for the Australia women's national water polo team. With the exception of all the two assistant coaches, all the images are used to illustrate who a player (or coach) is on their individual article. Work best as a set as opposed to individually.

Articles in which this image appears

Bronwen Knox, Kate Gynther, Glencora Ralph,Ashleigh Southern, Nicola Zagame,Jane Moran, Holly Lincoln-Smith, Rowena Webster, Gemma Beadsworth, Melissa Rippon, Sophie Smith, Isobel Bishop, Zoe Arancini, Hannah Buckling, Alicia McCormack, Victoria Brown,Kelsey Wakefield,Greg McFadden

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Bidgee

• Support as nominator --LauraHale (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FPs need to be used in at least one article to be promoted. Two of these images are unused. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To have high quality photographs of an entire national squad is quite rare, and they do of course add immensely to the articles on the individuals. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would be okay with the two assistant coaches being removed from the set. I think I could create articles for them. I think they could probably withstand an AfD, but they would only qualify under WP:GNG and I'd rather not risk that. Thus, yes, easier to remove them from the nomination. --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we adjust the exposures to make them consistent? For example the image of Ashleigh Southern is darker than the one of Rowena Webster. The coaches are all darker than the players. The wall could be used as a reference, but it is just as easy to look at the shutter speed, iso and aperture and work it out that way before saving from the RAWs. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coaches pictures are darker because they were taken later that evening, rather than being a variation of the camera exposure settings. Colin°^Talk 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have the RAW files and will try to fix the exposure, though it may take a day or more since I'm busy in real life. Also, those were edited on my laptop which isn't the best to edit RAW photos from. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have more pressing issues to deal with ATM and isn't high on my list. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt the time has an impact - the coaches have white t-shirts, which throw the metering a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: would like to support; however, I'm concerned that as soon as the roster changes, we're going to have to start delisting. What do you guys think? Clegs (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Call the set Australia women's national water polo team 2012? The individual images will have high enough EV individually to maybe keep the set alive even after the roster changes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The precedent is that if a subject is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough for a FP. Most of these photos have corresponding individual articles, so I don't see a problem. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, but I'm not sure we'd be supporting these individually. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The lighting is OK but doesn't flatter -- showing every pore and spot. The subjects are standing too close to the background, so the texture is visible as is their shadow. The 35mm-equivalent focal length of around 40mm is an odd choice for a portrait: the wide angle and being less than a metre from the subject isn't a flattering combination, especially for the nose. All the images have been cropped or downsampled to have 2k at the longest edge leaving a <4MP image from the original 18MP out of the camera. The set would be more useful if they had been cropped square rather than being almost square but varying in width and height. That all the ladies' pictures were taken within three minutes of each other tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait. Alicia, Gemma and Sophie aren't in focus. Ashleigh isn't looking at the camera. Holly is sloping to one side. Kelsey's smile is unfortunate. Rowena doesn't look happy at all. Gregory might have bothered to shave. Dalibor is too tall for the background.... --Colin°^Talk 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a quick photo shoot before the match, so time was limited. If I had my own way, I would have used a studio with the correct lighting but in this case it wasn't possible. Yes, the lens was a poor selection however a number of factors made me pick it. Sorry I'm fine with the criticism/critiquing but "tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait", I take that as an insult and very much why I hate FP on en Wiki and Commons. I take care with all my photographs but when you're pressed for time and you don't have the gear that would have made the difference (I'm not made of money nor do I have a money tree). If you have a problem with my downsizing, that it your problem not mine. I have my reasons to downsize and no I don't do commercial photography. Fact is your insult has me questioning whether I want to contribute any further photographs to the project. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really sorry you have taken it this way. It wasn't meant as an insult. I'm sure you took as much care as 10-second-per-person allowed you to take. But the fact remains we are judging a featured picture here. Can I put it another way for you: Considering the photographer only had three minutes to take all these pictures, they're pretty good and make a valuable contributions to our articles on the subject. They're just not FP standard and I note that you didn't nominate them. Colin°^Talk 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Your comment had nothing to do with FP, it was a indirect attack at myself, by saying I do not care about anything I do. Look what happens when you have the right lighting condtions and at least I leave in the EXIF data. I noted your other constructive criticism for the future photography I do. Even with your comment striked, I still feel totally upset and humiliated to the point that I feel that there is no point in me to contribute anymore. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geez Bidgee, don't leave... Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As the quality of the pictures in terms of lens selection is an issue, some of the back story regarding the images. I asked the team media manager for permission to take pictures on Tuesday night. She arranged it so pictures could be taken two days later, at 5:10pm before the start of an international test match at 6:30pm against Great Britain, informed the players they would have their pictures taken and why they were desired. I was told the venue. There was very little flexibility available for Bidgee to play with. He had less than 48 hours notice to book a bus, arrange accommodation and chose the right camera materials for a type of picture he had very little experience taking. The venue/backdrop was chosen based on the team. The time of day was set because of the match time. It was taken inside a pool. There was an expectation by me and the media I talked to that Bidgee would take pictures of players in action during the game. At the same time, Bidgee had very, very little time to take these pictures. The time crunch was such that he took pictures of 17 women in about 5 minutes. (I had a list of their names, and recorded the picture order. Bidgee showed each player the picture after he took it.) There wasn't time enough to do much more than that. The blue back drop was a team suggestion. I think these are some of the best profile pictures taken of female athletes in any sport, and are superior to the pictures appearing on Australian Water Polo's website. Compare Bidgee's picture of Zoe Arancini to Australian Water Polo. Are they individually the best pictures ever? No, and a few could be fixed... but nothing us hugely problematic and as a set, they are in my opinion, really, really fantastic (especially given the conditions) and better than any others of their kind on Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the comment Bidgee took personally and apologised on his talk page. These pictures are valuable to WP and I appreciate the time you guys spent arranging this, taking the pictures and uploading them for free to WP. I agree that Zoe's picture is very good. I'm not aware that we have any "featured set" criteria that lowers the standard for individual pics but if someone wants to point me at it then I could revise my review. Colin°^Talk 09:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured sets have always been a bit contentious. Nothing is written down and everybody has different feelings about them. Some feel that a set can be greater than the sum of it's parts. Others feel that each image should meet the FPC criteria individually, and often dislike the idea of sets because they feel each image isn't judged properly. Sometimes I attempt to avoid them, and just nominate small numbers of related images separately, but then I get comments like "these should be in a set". One can't win really. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with a featured set concept where not every pic needs to be individually FP quality (perhaps at least something like Commons' QI standards). I agree there is added value to the set over and above individual photographs. But no alternative criteria exists and this is a review of feature picture (singular) candidates, so I've judged the images against our criteria. I see now from this discussion that Laura was encouraged to nominate these by folk who haven't followed through with their support here. I feel she should have been better advised. This (Jeremy Doyle) featured pic is better than any of these, yet got quite a tough review at FPC. I wasn't nearly as picky as any of those comments. Colin°^Talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another example of the many problems with sets and why they're a bad idea. Individually and overall these images are good and valuable for WP (great job by both Bidgee and LauraHale, and anyone else involved), but I doubt anyone would argue they would all pass FPC individually. As noted above, there are no separate criteria to say that images in sets should have different standards applied to them. I'd suggest that the few best should be selected and nominated individually to get a more considered evaluation here. --jjron (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not repeat the mistake made earlier, which only led to disappointment when someone's bubble was burst. Are you confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain, and would you support them? We've got FPs that aren't as good technically as the best here, but they are of a really famous person, or have a more natural pose or lighting. Individually, these women are barely notable and it is obvious they were asked to stand against a wall and smile. Colin°^Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I've only looked at about one of them closely (yet another issue with sets; how many people actually scrutinise them all before !voting as they would for a normal FPC?), which helps explain why I haven't !voted. But really it's not up to whether or not I would support them; it's whether any of them may stand a chance out on their own when opened up to the FP community. I'm not the community. And am I "confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain" - absolutely not; there's not many images that do that, and I'd never say I'm confident that anything will do so beforehand. In fact what happens in various noms I often find mind-boggling. My point really is, say pick the best one, nominate it, see how it goes. If it passes there may be few that could get through, if not, it's probably not worth pursuing. But at least the nominator/contributor will get an idea of whether any of these are regarded by the community as meeting the FPC criteria without the confusion brought about by nomming the set. On the other hand, many contributors avoid nomming at FPC for good reasons. But FP star or not, they're still great for the 'pedia. --jjron (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're being honest but IMO the problem is that I don't think any of those who advised Laura to nominate looked at them closely. Elsewhere, someone recommended Gemma as a single nom. Now she's a pretty girl, and it looks ok at preview size, but when you open it then you see it clearly isn't in focus (very obvious when compared to many of the others which are sharp) so would be a clear fail. A screenful of pretty girls and the boy's are going "What's not to like, nom the set". Is that what happened? You and I might have thick enough skin to "nominate it, see how it goes" but others apparently don't. Colin°^Talk 07:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons if there's no policy for something, we often start referring to en-wiki policy... so maybe en-wiki might like to take a look at commons ideas on sets (commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates... I'm biased, I wrote them):

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

• All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
• All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
• If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
• If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
• All images should be of high technical quality.

--99of9 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the majority would pass FP on their own. Commons would not be too happy about the downsampling either. Wrt your criteria, how would the third rule interact with WP's requirement to have all images in an article. For example, if some of the women above didn't have articles? Or if you had individual photos of a pop group, but only the lead singer's photo appeared in any article? Would you drop that rule for sets? Colin°^Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "majority FP" is for unlimited sets (e.g. a sequence of a wasp laying an egg), because there you have much more control over shot selection etc. But maybe en-wiki would prefer to make a majority rule on all sets (similar to featured topics)? I'm not sure what the best usage criteria would be, but I'm sure something is required. (Personally I'd ditch the assistant coaches.) --99of9 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a set The portraits are technically sound, and a complete set of portraits of a national-level sports team has significant EV, so I think that the FP criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as set: I believe that the EV for the entirety of the team offsets the technical limitations of the images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree with Crisco 1492. Pine^(talk) 22:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: As I have been evacuated due to the threat of the Murrumbidgee River levee failing in Wagga Wagga[13], I will not be able to do any photograph work on the photos. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)j[reply]

• Suspend nom? --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps. A lot of the FPC regulars are waiting for the images to be touched up before they vote, based on the conversation above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I too am waiting for the exposure adjustment. I suggest we suspend it. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination closure timer seems to have gone screwy on this, saying the voting period is already over (five days too early) so I've removed it. Please manually note closing time. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments above. Great contribution to WP, but individually it seems clear many of these would not pass FPC on their own, and that should be a baseline (or else we really need to reconsider all our criteria and judgements). As a 'set' they lack some basics such as being cropped to consistent dimensions; easily fixed, perhaps, but not there now. Would reconsider individually nommed images. --jjron (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mostly agree with jjron. These don't really have the EV necessary to pass separately (action shots would be far superior), and they're not being used as a set. Sets make sense when all the images are used in the same article, but that's not the case here. Lots of minor issues too (focus, composition, etc.). Makeemlighter (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least the two assistant coaches, partly because they're tangential/non-notable, but partly because they both have composition problems (too tall?). I'm also waiting for the exposure adjustment. --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL. Maybe a better way to solve that would be by taking/finding better pictures of other countries? --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe JJ or Bidgee could go birding in the Moluccas. There's an invisible bird there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I opposed, but this one is straightforward on numbers and nobody has closed it in 2.5 days. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A classic kick a man while he is down. Like fucking hello, I stated that I couldn't do the work needed within the FPC time frame and what happens? The FPC is continued even though, at no fault of my own, I had no chance to make the corrections. I was evacuated and also hospitalised, so I've only just started coming back online and still getting everything back in order. Too bad if my place was flooded, since you continued as if nothing was going on and I was out of action (unable to do anything). I've put a lot of time into both projects but what is the point when the FP clan (reason why FPC needs to be independent from FP contributors) already has its mind set? I'm upset and pissed off, I've put in a lot of time and money into thing things I do and I get crap. Get over yourself over me downsizing my photographs, be happy that I've donated them and stop your bitching. Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bidgee, we are happy you donated them and are grateful for the time and effort you've put into them. They are a valuable contribution to WP. The adjustments that I believed were pending (having the coaches match brightness with the players and making all the pics square) are still useful changes but wouldn't be enough to change my position. I hope you continue to make photos for WP because the important thing is the contributions to content, not the opinions of a random small set of people. I'm sorry to hear you've had problems IRL. We're judging the photographs. If you want a gold star for effort and uncritical praise, then go show them to your mum. Colin°^Talk 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If you want a gold star for effort and uncritical praise, then go show them to your mum." How fucking insulting and clearly proves the whole FPC is just set by those who think they know it all, well fuck you. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, the final sentence of that comment, both the tone and the comment, was completely unnecessary. Please put a little more thought into your comments in the future and refrain from doing that again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        • I have to agree, that was beyond uncivil. Any technical changes necessary for FP status, if Bidgee is inclined to make them, can be done at his leisure; personal safety and well-being comes first. Bidgee, glad you're safe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very snippy comments. Bidgee wasn't the one who officially proposed the picture set, either. However, anyone proposing and/or authoring a featured-anything needs to put personal feelings aside and take careful note of fair criticism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • • There's fair criticism indeed, but how one conveys it is important. "Tuck in your shirt, you slob" versus "Your shirt's untucked" for an easy example. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • They were harsh comments, I agree. Not nice. But hardly "beyond uncivil" and considerably milder than the language they were responding to. Do you disagree that Laura and Bidgee were campaining for this FP on the basis of the effort put into it? Do you disagree that Bidgee hasn't handled criticism well (e.g., his response to the downsampling issue). As for pending technical changes? Focus. Subject looking at the camera. Choosing an appropriate lens/distance. Separation from the background. Making sure the background is tall enough. These things aren't "technical changes" that would make this an FP. Colin°^Talk 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • • You started out really well, until you closed with that patronising *******... Have you ever tried to arrange for an entire team to agree to let you photograph them, with the knowledge that those pictures would be free for everyone to use? Just the negotiations would be enough to wear me thin. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are falling into the same trap. Bidgee and Laura's contributions to the encyclopeadia is one thing, and nominating pictures for FP is another. If you want to reward the first (which is far more important) then give them a barnstar. If you want to read comments that are "beyond uncivil" then just read Bidgee's postings today. Our review comments are "crap" and so much "bitching". We're all one big FP cabal. And we can go **** ourselves. Colin°^Talk 12:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can't say I blame him, although a wikibreak may be necessary. A little tact would be nice, especially when one knows the other person is under stress. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Regardless of the stress the person is under, they have to understand that FPC is a process that tries to be as objective and sanitised as possible in order to get to the essence of what makes a useful photo. I occasionally get snappy when I think that voters have little understanding of what they're voting on, but I don't think that it's necessarily the case here. It is irrelevant how much effort went into the photo (within reason) if the quality is not up to FP standards. Colin's final comment, while inflammatory, did make a valid point that Bidgee failed to take on board. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 00:40:46 (UTC)

Reason

large image, good EV for the articles because of the diagram

Articles in which this image appears

Caprella mutica and Caprellidae. I have just now added it to Morphology (biology) which previously had no images.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans

Creator

Obsidian Soul

• Support as nominator --Pine^(talk) 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have a few issues with this:

• It should be SVG for translatability
• The focal depth is much too shallow
• Background has been noticeably removed (possibly) through harsh changes to the levels
• The resolution could be higher

I think the concept is excellent though and would love to see some of these issues fixed. - Zephyris _Talk 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on a photograph. The svg format would not be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could embed the raster image and have the labels part of the SVG. Having said that, I don't think we should demand it. I'll let you guys consider it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embedding raster images results in extremely poor rendering of the raster by our svg rendering engine, last I checked. sonia♫ 22:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a matter of principle. EV is excellent, and the original image is available for relabelling in a different language, should someone want to do so. FWIW, the Commons annotations also did not have explicit multilingual support, last time I checked. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 01:05:12 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, nice large panorama, previous nom was a close call

Articles in which this image appears

Frankfurt, Maintower

FP category

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

http://de.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Benutzer:Schaengel

• Support as nominator --Pine^(talk) 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The skyscraper with the golden symbol is cut off (a big issue as it is so prominent) Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crisco. Clegs (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Also, would like to see the bottom of some of the larger skyscrapers to the right, particularly the Deutsche Bank Twin Towers as they are so iconic. God Emperor^Talk 18:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose At risk of joining in a pile-on, the cut-off is too distracting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The photo is seven years old and as such outdated. Skyscrapers such as Tower 185, Opernturm and PalaisQuartier are entirely missing, not to mention other buildings... --KFP (contact - edits) 04:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...(Very nice panorama, though!) --KFP (contact - edits) 04:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Its a cool picture... But (per the above comments) its a poor representation of Frankfurt. Also, the vertical resolution is rather low... Can't see as many details. Dusty777 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, cutoff was the first thing I noticed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 14:04:09 (UTC)

• 

Reason

High quality photo of this aircraft in flight (previous nom)

Articles in which this image appears

Airbus A330, Aeroflot

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Sergey Kustov

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wouldn't mind seeing a bit taken off the top and bottom, there's a lot of empty space. But it's still pretty great and really detailed (you can even make out the pilot). Has great EV for both articles, except it gets a bit lost in Aeroflot and it could do with replacing the weaker Lede image in Airbus A330, despite that one showing the wheels. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Good shot. The edit is better aesthetically. Clegs (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great shot, love the clouds. GreyHood ^Talk 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I am happy with either but prefer the original. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit I like the edit because it helps me focus on the plane a little more. —Eustress ^talk 04:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit Per above. Dusty777 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aeroflot Airbus A330 Kustov edit.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 12:08:43 (UTC)

Reason

FPCR#1: not totally applicable to this SVG, but colour-balance wise I think the project's recommended supporting colours are suitably clear. #2: SVG, reasonably clear, most important detail readable at thumbnailing size. #3: I hope really informative. Also fairly aesthetically pleasing since the colour scheme was changed. #4: yes. #5: Good encyclopedic value, I would hope, in supporting text in primarily those articles below (and a few others which are weaker). Replaced the previous file recently, but that had been in place for a sufficient time. #6: US military source for the vast majority of the map (only the inset map is not; I do not think it needs verification). #7: captions, well, used in a variety of ways in the articles, with flexible legend-boxes and the like. #8: N/A.

The previous FPC (here) revealed a variety of viewpoints. Ultimately in trying to take a number of things into account, we got a bit lost. However, I believe this file is the most suitable and I considered the issues rased there settled – I can provide further rationales if needed.

Articles in which this image appears

Articles in which this image appears:Battle of the Bulge, Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive, Battle of Lanzerath Ridge and Siege of Bastogne

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

Matthewedwards, Grandiose

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very well done; my only grouch is the arrows showing the Northern attacks get mushed together. Not enough of a grouch to ultimately change my mind though. Very well done, and I appreciate all the hard work you put into this to satisfy our whims. Clegs (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as co-author. I think this does a good job of satisfying all issues raised at the previous nom, and has been fact-checked numerous times against the sources. The opaque elevation levels allow for clear reading of the main substance of the map, the battlelines, but still allows the user to see the type of terrain it took place on. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of the arrows look like they were drawn by a wiggly hand and yet others are smooth. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed? I smoothed out the three that I noticed, but we really don't want to deviate from the original sources. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- I'll buy that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: One (relatively minor) qualm with the image: some of the allied movement blue numbers are outlined with a thin black line, and this doesn't look extremely great when the image is viewed at full size. Spencer^T♦C 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it added much, so I've removed the stroke from the labels. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My concerns have been resolved. Spencer^T♦C 13:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The legend is off-ratio to the map, to such an extent that it had to be repeated in the caption; and even at full resolution (which is less than the 1000 px guideline), the legend's pt size is very small, somewhat blurred, and difficult to read. —Eustress ^talk 17:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be. The size guidelines to not apply to SVGs because they are entirely (and losslessly) scaleable. The full resolution attached to the image is entire arbitrary, and I do not believe that the readability should be judged at that level. Having said that, I do not agree that it is difficult to read. I think the most important point is to consider the image's SVG format. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My apologies, and thanks for explaining. (When I expanded the image earlier by clicking on the image in the file, it did not open very large, but this time I located the 2000px version and it is flawless.) I'm still not crazy about having a legend repeated in the caption, but I'll defer to others' judgment on that one. —Eustress ^talk 01:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a professional-standard map and a big improvement on the (professional) image it's based on; great work Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 18:27:20 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of proper size depicting Derek Jeter, regarded as a future Hall of Famer, during one of his most notable moments. He is saluting the Yankee Stadium crowd as they celebrate his 2,722nd career hit, with which he passed Lou Gehrig for the franchise record. He's got his typical stoic facial expression, which is pure Jeter. In addition to the articles, this image illustrates Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees very well.

Articles in which this image appears

Derek Jeter, History of the New York Yankees, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees

FP category for this image

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

Creator

created by Chris Ptacek, Flickr user, uploaded by Kanesue

• Support as nominator --– Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, I think this is too dark, too grainy and too soft. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. such a historic picture is non-reshootable; to get a better quality than this, you're going to have to get a press pass (I've tried to get big lenses in to baseball games... the ushers are nazis). Clegs (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if the fans can't get good cameras in, there are press there with good cameras, so good photos exist. — raekyt 13:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But not freely licensed ones. Clegs (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not now, but in 70 years or so, yes. Wikipedia can wait. — raekyt 13:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose To address Clegs' claim, we already have a higher quality, FP of Jeter. This is simply too grainy for a modern, active, highly photographed player. And while yes there is historical value given the timing, the photo itself does not really reflect that in a meaningful way as far as I am concerned (the event was famous, this photo/act really wasn't). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, a shot of his swing would have had much more EV. But this is a classic pose, acknowledging the applause just after he got to first base. For me, at least, it's good enough. Clegs (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The EV is in serious question for me on this one. It's really hard to connect the picture with what it is claimed to represent. You can't see the crowd cheering behind him... he could be stretching for all we know. —Eustress ^talk 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 23:01:47 (UTC)

Reason

A very high quality portrait of a notable Finnish politician and diplomat.

Articles in which this image appears

Hjalmar Procopé

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political

Creator

Harris & Ewing Photographic Studio

• Support as nominator --O.J. (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We may need to have a link to the large image viewer. That's a lot of pixels. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too many distracting elements in the photo and very harsh lighting employed, casting distracting shadows. —Eustress ^talk 04:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Eustress. Clegs (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 06:13:44 (UTC)

Reason

Really fine photo of a Hollywood star

Articles in which this image appears

Maureen O'Hara

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Unknown (studio publicity still)

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 06:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too much airbrushing/photoshopping, or probably a combination. Her skin looks plastic, with her forehead in particular lacking any detail. The blacks are too heavy, again completely lacking any detail, and/or significantly artifacted (shadowy parts of hair at top and right side of her head, and even worse is her neck). And what on earth has happened to her right eye? That alone would disqualify it. --jjron (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, the whites are slightly washed out, but the flatness of the skin is likely largely due to this being a promotional shot. Per historical value, this is as high quality as you're going to get. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jjron, over-manipulated, and is not as if she hasn't been much photographed. --ELEKHH^T 05:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron. Thought it looked not quite natural, but couldn't put my finger on why. JJ did. Clegs (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not promoted --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three and three. Not promoted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 23:32:46 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, famous painting and good encyclopedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus, Berlin), Early Netherlandish painting, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Petrus Christus, digitized by Google Art Project

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Glad they scanned this when they did... a few more years and they'll have to change the title to Paint Chips :) Still, good EV and a crisp scan. —Eustress ^talk 05:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Google Art rules. Brandmeister t 16:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Crazy hi-rez. Clegs (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per Eustress. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Petrus Christus - Portrait of a Young Woman - Google Art Project.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 05:33:24 (UTC)

Reason

It's Clark Gable, and I think it meets the FP criteria

Articles in which this image appears

Clark Gable

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Unknown (studio publicity still)

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 05:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- His body seems OOF. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Higher f-stop would have been better, but can't reshoot, and it's good enough. High EV. Clegs (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Slightly interesting choice of shadows, but not so obvious at larger sizes, and overall it's good. Source could be made clearer. --jjron (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The whole left side of his body is out of focus which, combined with the drop in shoulder height, makes it look like somebody else is coming up behind him. There are many better portraits of Clark Gable out there. Yomangani^talk 11:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per my above comment and Yomangani's Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Insufficient proof of copyright status. Per Wikimedia counsel (in response to a query about publicity images such as this), "It is essential to confirm that the exact image uploaded to Common was released without a copyright notice". See WP:CCI#Attorney reply. There is no proof specific to this image showing that there was no copyright notice/no renewal. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image has the same copyright status as FP File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg, which editors thought was appropriate (see FPC). —Eustress ^talk 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one editor at all responded to my comment on that photo, and that was before Wikimedia counsel weighed in, in any event. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 15:27:30 (UTC)

Reason

Very high definition video of the Kremlin Clock chiming; the EV for such a video on related articles is extremely high

Articles in which this image appears

Kremlin Clock, Striking clock

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Presidential Press and Information Office

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It would be more interesting to see the same one minute before midnight and trace the moving clockhand. Excellent otherwise. Brandmeister t 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great video, already featured on Commons. GreyHood ^Talk 17:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm concerned about the caption's mention of "New Year". You'll notice there is no cheering from people in Red Square because most Russians celebrate the Old New Year on January 14. Perhaps modify caption to simply say, "The Kremlin Clock chiming at midnight"? —Eustress ^talk 19:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full video from the link shows the traditional New Years address by the Russian President (in this case Dmitry Medvedev) at which the Kremlin clock strikes and the national anthem is sung. This is what is shown on Russian TV on New Years Eve. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 19:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, Russians celebrate New Year on the New Year, i.e. on the night from 31 December to 1 January. Then they continue to celebrate until the Orthodox Christmas on 7 January and beyond. By 13th January everyone is so tired of vodka and celebrating that only the craziest fans of partying, the slowpokes and drunkards seriously celebrate the Old New Year GreyHood ^Talk 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • lol, interesting, and thanks for the comments. The question that then follows: If it is New Years, why is it silent other than the chimes? I ask because this is a possible EV concern for me. —Eustress ^talk 01:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 05:43:22 (UTC)

Reason

I was drawn to restore this image by the subject's eyes, which I felt piercing into my soul. Luckily the original TIF wasn't too badly damaged (not like Virginia Rappe's portrait which I gave up on), so the results were in my opinion spectacular. High resolution, good lighting... all around I think this is a good image.

Articles in which this image appears

Inuit women, Inuit culture, Inuit, and 5 more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional

Creator

Created by Lomen Bros., restored by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support edit 1 Creases/scratches should be cleaned and perhaps contrast adjusted a bit. Brandmeister t 16:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added another alt. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's still a large web of scratches/creases, particularly on her face. I'm currently neutral. Brandmeister t 15:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, at least for now I love the photo (it has long been one of the rotating photos on my userpage!), but I don't know if her ethnicity can be positively identified based on the location of the photographer and her dress. (She is only described as "Eskimo" in the original caption.) I'd guess she is Inuit, but Nome at least today has a significant number of Yupik people and I think is close to the traditional location of Yupik populations as well. (See language map, page describing Nome Eskimo Community, Nome probation services page noting several Eskimo groups in the area.) I'd want someone with more knowledge to take a look at this so that we can be confident it is accurate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very good point, especially since the tribal differences may not have been important to the photographer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• She is Nowadluk (Nora) Ootenna, a popular subject for Alaskan photographers around the time - [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. I don't think there is anything to say that the subject was from Nome (this was just the location of the Lomen Brothers' studio) - Nora was related to James Keok and was married to George Ootenna who were natives of Prince of Wales Island and worked as reindeer herders (a business in which Lomen Bros was the main investor in Alaska), and the Glenbow archive places most of the photos of her there, so she would probably have been Haida, though I don't see a problem with "Eskimo woman" as that was the original caption. According to the Glenbow Museum [21] the brothers didn't invest in the studio until 1908, so a studio shot from 1907 is unlikely (but we can blame the LoC for that attribution). Nora was born in 1885 so would have been 22 in 1907, so that doesn't help much for a more accurate dating. Yomangani^talk 13:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Impressive. As such, should we remove the image from Inuit-related articles or...? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a can of worms I wish I hadn't opened. No reliable source I've found says she's Haida - it's just that Prince of Wales Island is the homeland of the Kaigani Haida - and every other source that we might consider reliable says Inuit (or in the case of the LoC, Eskimo). Yomangani^talk 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess keeping it in the articles is okay. It would be a shame to just use this portrait in List of mammals in Alaska Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still deciding if I want to throw my support into the ring, but all of those archive links from the University of Alaska saying Inuit/Inupiat/Inupiaq (Inupiat/Inupiaq are spelling variants, and they are a subgroup of Inuit people) I think are enough to indicate her ethnicity, especially given that most Native people around Nome are Inupiat. I think the chance that she is Haida is basically zero, given her clothing which is definitely not Haida (do a google image search for Haida clothing to see what I'm talking about). Those other linked photos were also not taken on Prince of Wales Island (Alaska) - they were taken in Cape Prince of Wales (far from where Haida people traditionally live). As of the 1910 Census she lived in Port Clarence (near Cape Prince of Wales)[22] where the reindeer herds referenced in those links are based (see article). The men referenced above were also from Cape Prince of Wales, not Prince of Wales Island.[23] Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• With all these sources we could have an article on her. If she is Inuit, then wouldn't the accuracy of the portrait's use be acceptable? Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Calliopejen1 is right; I went off down a blind alley somewhere and substituted Prince of Wales Island for Cape Prince of Wales. There's not enough info on her for an article, though you might scrape one for her husband who was involved in introducing reindeer to Alaska, an artist and a community leader and has a community centre named after him. Yomangani^talk 10:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 23:58:14 (UTC)

Reason

Saw this at commons. Interesting historical photograph with high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

History of beer, salt print

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Hill & Adamson

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Suggest changing caption from "first photograph" to "earliest photograph". Also, is use of honorific "Dr" necessary? —Eustress ^talk 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Scewing (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice. I don't think we have a featured calotype. Chick Bowen 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Clegs (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ooooh. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It could well be the "earliest" photograph". Is there a reference stating such? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't found any yet, but as the salt print was introduced in 1839 (or 1841 in a another source) it's possible (note that it's not a definite statement above) Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Edinburgh Ale by Hill & Adamson c1844.png --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting this in People/Others since at least one subject is notable. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2012 at 11:59:07 (UTC)

Reason

Informative and impressive panorama

Articles in which this image appears

Ministro Pistarini International Airport, Airport check-in, Buenos Aires, Transport in Argentina

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

S23678

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely stitched. The 180-degree view clearly has distortions but they suit the geometric nature of the subject. Colin°^Talk 18:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Outstanding image, feels like you're there. At full resolution, a couple people appear slightly blurred since they were probably moving, but it's not distracting and makes sense technically. —Eustress ^talk 19:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support solid as far as I can tell.©Geni 22:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think this is pointlessly wide. I'd much prefer a rectilinear stitch of the centre part of this image. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think the width is to allow us to see both sides. Having travel flashbacks now cuz of this pic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. Very impressive. There is a small fish eye effect, but it doesn't matter too much. Dusty777 (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - agree with JJ Harrison. I don't like these distorted images, and I can't make out what it's showing. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The picture is very impressive and has a good EV, but (per JJ harrison) the stitching in the center of the picture does need some repair. It kinda looks like the left and right sides of the pictures angle towards the center. Dusty777 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nice, but agree with JJ Harrison too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I'm not bothered by the distortion as much as I am by having that center arch cut off slightly ... it's a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fish-eye doesn't bother me. I've looked and looked, and can't find the stitching error JJH is talking about. Clegs (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone point out where he said there was a stitching error? Seems to me he only said that the wrong stitching technique had been used. --jjron (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree that the excessive distortion is distracting, confusing and unnecessary. --ELEKHH^T 00:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 09:57:02 (UTC)

Reason

This addresses concerns from the previous nomination.

Copying from previous nom:

High quality image of proper size depicting Derek Jeter, regarded as a future Hall of Famer, during one of his most notable moments. He is saluting the Yankee Stadium crowd as they celebrate his 2,722nd career hit, with which he passed Lou Gehrig for the franchise record. He's got his typical stoic facial expression.

Articles in which this image appears

Derek Jeter, History of the New York Yankees

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport

Creator

Chris Ptacek

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Snapshotty and considerable blurrinness, although nice posture. Brandmeister^talk 11:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Brandmeister. Its a stunning picture, just lacks the good quality. There is probably a thousand other pictures just like this on the internet, so this picture is not very unique nor does it have any higher value then others. Dusty777 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it's still dark and soft. The grainyness is less, but there's still a lack of focus. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw at this point because it seems evident that the reason for the nomination wasn't appreciated (i.e. people didn't read the opening statement). The original reason for the nom was that this is a significant moment of Yankee sporting history. There are therefore not a thousand other pictures like it, as this moment occurred only once. So I thought the picture was worth fixing up for the sake of the EV. But this nom has become pointless due to, imo, overly heavy early opposing. Sometimes it's worth waiting for the nominator to reply to comments. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not promoted Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2012 at 11:47:47 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, famous piece of art, good quality, featured on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Whistler's Mother, James McNeill Whistler, +7

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

James McNeill Whistler

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good scan. Clegs (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love the curtain. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - famous painting with beautiful detail. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and strong EV. Spencer^T♦C 05:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Colin°^Talk 11:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Whistlers Mother high res.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2012 at 12:11:32 (UTC)

Reason

Per beans I found on the ground

Articles in which this image appears

Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket +4

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

James Abbott McNeill Whistler

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an excellent example of Whistler's work. And because I'm the one who left the beans scattered on the ground in the first place. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality scan. Clegs (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although I really don't get the painting, I assume it's a good reproduction and has crazy good EV. From 30s of reading, it seems that this painting pretty much bankrupted him and ended his career. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV is easy given the painting has an article. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Whistler-Nocturne in black and gold.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 11:07:05 (UTC)

Reason

A very valuable image of a historic event, which is used in many articles, with nice composition and dynamism that adds to the EV. Relatively high technical quality for a historic image.

Articles in which this image appears

Jesse Owens, African American, 1930s, Jesse Owens Award, List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients, Ohio State Buckeyes, Timeline of African-American Civil Rights Movement

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And of course, also support alt Tomer T (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- There's more resolution in that LOC TIF. If restored and cropped, the resulting file should be much larger than the currently nominated image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit, oppose original -- Much nicer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on Original. Pretty iconic image, but agree that I'd like to see a re-edit. The hi-res TIFF isn't particularly great quality (due to print quality of original source), but it looks like more could be done with it. I'm not sure if this is available from another original source with better print quality. The blacks on this restoration have also been made too heavy. In fact I'd probably be more inclined to support a fairly simple edit of the TIFF with little more than a crop and straighten. --jjron (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you suggested, I've added an alt. Tomer T (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support Alt. Could probably do with a bit of a dust and scratch removal on the Alt still, and not sure there wouldn't be a better original print around to scan, but other values compensate. Please count as 'full support' if this comes down to a borderline decision. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, where's this TIFF you're talking about? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here. The alt I've added is a conversion of this TIFF to JPG format, plus crop and straighten. Tomer T (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit only. Good scan of a very historic photo.

• Preceding support added by Clegs with this edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the crummy things about working nights is that sometimes one forgets to sign his posts. Grr. Clegs (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great photograph. Maybe it's my computer, but I like the original better. I'd like the edit better if it were darker like the original. But either, really. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think an attempt should be made to filter out the half-toning from Alt 1. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Too late to oppose, I guess, but I really don't think this is up to snuff. I'd support the original photograph in a heartbeat, but a scan of a mediocre reproduction from a book isn't good enough for me. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the image pass? Tomer T (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't close noms usually, but if we're going by vote counting there's only 4.5 of the necessary 5 supports. Clegs (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider what Jjron said:

      Weak Support Alt. Could probably do with a bit of a dust and scratch removal on the Alt still, and not sure there wouldn't be a better original print around to scan, but other values compensate. Please count as 'full support' if this comes down to a borderline decision. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (emphasis added)

I count five votes if jjron's comment is taken into consideration. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a request to comment on my talkpage by Crisco to clarify my vote, yes, count mine as full support (I can hardly retract now); I'll strike the weak to make it easier. I still maintain that it could be tweaked to improve it, or possibly a better copy could be found. However I did a quick web search and can't find anything noticeably better - anything that potentially looked to be higher quality in thumb was far too small. If a better version comes along, a D&R would be easily done. --jjron (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jesse Owens3.jpg --Julia\^talk 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I take note of the comments made, the numbers are fairly clear and this is, with reservations, a promotion. Julia\^talk 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 02:07:49 (UTC)

Reason

High quality work of art which depicts the subject well

Articles in which this image appears

Pope Nicholas V

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others (doesn't look like there's a religion section)

Creator

Peter Paul Rubens

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definite EV, clean scan —Eustress ^talk 05:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Euestress. Clegs (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Euestress. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The cropping to take out the frame has slightly clipped the edges off the picture - most notable at the top where a central green jewel (probably an emerald) and part of the third tier has been taken off what I assume is his Papal tiara (rather than a mitre; the image page contains no info on what we're actually looking at in the picture other than who it is, which maybe also somewhat lessens EV). --jjron (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The image page contains all the relevant information from the source page, from what I can see. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe image page info needs to be sourced from elsewhere then, in order to flesh out the details. I doubt we'd be saying 'good EV' if a contemporary image contained such limited info. Given these hi-res paintings seem to be becoming more regular, perhaps we need to be more scrupulous on their EV rather than just supporting them as a good scan/repro. --jjron (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean background on the subject or on the painting? The EV is mainly for the subject (Pope Nicholas V). The individual painting itself has limited notability, and its provenance probably isn't recorded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the subject. In cases where the painting itself has an article say, then that would provide the EV and we wouldn't need so much on the image page. But with something like this the painter (or the subject or his minions) has chosen this particular regalia for some reason, it's possibly significant, but we have none of that info. Presumably all this has been scrupulously researched at some stage. Wouldn't we expect that info in a historical photo say, if it wasn't immediately apparent? But maybe I'm just being picky because I don't particularly care for the painting. --jjron (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a bit of biographical information. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Cut off. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Paus Nicolaas V door Peter Paul Rubens.jpg --Julia\^talk 17:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2012 at 04:27:57 (UTC)

File:Brassica romanesco.jpg

Reason

This picture is aesthetically pleasing and demonstrates a clear natural occurrence of several opaque mathematical topics

Articles in which this image appears

Logarithmic spiral,Romanesco broccoli

FP category for this image

Plants

Creator

Dino

• Support as nominator --Enthdegree (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Needs copyright verification. According to [24], media uploaded to the site is indeed under Create Commons, but it is restricted to non-commercial use which is not accepted. Permission is needed from the person who posted the image on the blog (email address was given). Also, I don't think it meets the size requirements (only 800px). ZooFari (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and quick close. Size and copyright issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close per Crisco. Clegs (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have an existing FP, File:Fractal Broccoli.jpg. I've replaced and removed the smaller image in articles as per the copyright concern. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neato! So this has already been featured. Cool, it seemed like the kind of thing that deserves to be.Enthdegree (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File deleted at my request, was a user submitted photograph not covered by UCB's CC arrangement (only staff images). Also, even staff images are for noncommercial use only. Photograph was by "Kimberly", whose email was - correct me if I'm wrong - not given, so I'm doubtful of the possibility that permission can still be obtained. Links are [25] for the image and [26] for the copyright status. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2012 at 17:28:50 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution/quality, good picture, high EV. Caption is not the greatest, as there isn't too much to describe (If you really think it needs improvement, let me know and I will try to improve it.)

Articles in which this image appears

Amagerbro Station, Copenhagen Metro, KHR Arkitekter.

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery

Creator

Stig Nygaard (Flickr)

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose A striking image, but the EV is not great enough. The article escalator is bursting at the seams with images, and this doesn't add anything more. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of your concerns when I nominated the picture. I removed Escalator from the nomination, to try and focus the EV more on the other articles (E.G. Amegerbro Station, Copenhagen Metro). Dusty777 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is you can't tell that that is where the escalator is. It could be at my local shopping mall for all I can tell from the picture. Clegs (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... your saying that there is no, distinguishing features that make this escalator different from any other? I can see your concern, but I don't see much reason to be concerned. I mean, the picture says its in Amegerbro Station, as part of the Copenhagen Metro, and the source says it was taken in Amegerbro Station, so it probably was. Does this address your concerns? Dusty777 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partially, which is why I'm not opposing. I think I'm going to remain neutral in this one, though. Clegs (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per blown highlights on many of the handrails. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blown highlights? Are you sure those aren't the lights on the escalator? Dusty777 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. Looking at the picture again, I don't quite like the reflection of the lights and the rails on the wall. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2012 at 16:22:52 (UTC)

Reason

Nice picture with high quality and EV. Impressive composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Caridina multidentata

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: what are the stripes in the water above its back? Clegs (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Tomer T (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are strange lines in the water that kind of follow the contours of the shrimp's back. Any idea what may cause something like that? I'm wondering if it's a similar effect as we can see on his front left foot which is obviously moving pretty fast and creates a similar effect. Also, below this yellow blurry foot bit, there's a strange artefact at the bottom of the frame. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it is. Tomer T (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looks badly photoshopped. Is the image a montage? There's an error at the bottom of the image, limbs and other parts look cut off, and the stripes following the contours of the body do seem a bit odd. If it wasn't manipulated as such then the depth of field must be completely awkward. ZooFari (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you may be looking at DOF effects - blurry foreground things concealing focal objects that are in motion. So you get two different blur effects right out of the box. As for the contour lines, the aquarium glass could cause some refraction, or possibly reflection off the lens. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2012 at 19:35:41 (UTC)

Reason

Valuable and informative well-done photo (I also added a possible crop)

Articles in which this image appears

KIM-1, Single-board microcontroller

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Rama

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And support the edits. Tomer T (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Awesome detail. Too much black space in the first. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No scale. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Edit 2 by Rama, with scale. Tomer T (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support edit -- I'd like to see size information. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 2 Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support edit add a scale, e^xtra999 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for both harsh lighting and too dark for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2. Good lighting, thanks for adding the scale. Clegs (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:MOS KIM-1 IMG 4211 cropped scale.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2012 at 09:38:01 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality film poster, and I like the colours.

Articles in which this image appears

Queen Christina (film), Christina, Queen of Sweden

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of MGM, with some cleanup by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice 1930ish presentation, with a beautiful Greta Garbo! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality reproduction. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Poster - Queen Christina 02 Crisco restoration.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2012 at 02:24:03 (UTC)

Reason

A beautiful, striking poster in high resolution and, best of all, free. A little busy to be sure, but striking at full size.

Articles in which this image appears

Quo Vadis (1951 film)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of MGM

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Artifacting around 'the most colossal ever' throughout. Clegs (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2012 at 02:36:26 (UTC)

Reason

I find the design quite impressive and evocative, with Anna May Wong's face hanging there in the shadows. As usual with scans from Dr. Macro, high quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Daughter of the Dragon

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of Paramount Pictures

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2012 at 20:02:58 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopedic, high quality, adds value to the articles, the only image that connects red color of the bridge to the fog.

Articles in which this image appears

San Francisco Bay;Golden Gate Bridge;List of megaprojects

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

mbz1

• Support as nominator --Broccolo (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Info The image was nominated before, but now I added to the caption for a bigger EV.
• Info This image File:San francisco in fog with rays.jpg has FP status, but it was taken against the rising sun, and shows no red color of the bridge.
• The image has been nominated twice before: 1 and 2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it's taken "against the rising sun", I don't get it, as the camera is looking to the east, but the light seems to be coming from the west. Also, I've always heard that the color of the bridge was the under paint, meant to be covered by a top coat, until people decided to like the color. I think any "facts" should have citations. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Info Both images the nominated one and the current FP were taken from about the same place, but the current FP was taken at sunrise against the rising sun, and therefore shows no red color of the bridge. The nominated image was taken at sunset, with the bridge lit by the setting sun. Here's one link, and another one that explain the selection of the color of the Bridge. Broccolo (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice composition and setting, in terms of the bridge and bay this is way better than the aforementioned existing FP. Brandmeister^talk 11:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great picture. Has EV and is of good technical standards. Dusty777 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support seems less sharp than it could be. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose If you look at the photo on full, the lights and vertical wires on the bridge do not look as sharp as they should be. sorry --Guerillero | My Talk 01:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as before. This is neither a good depiction of the bridge nor of the bay. A shot without fog has much more EV for both. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as comments on the previous FPCs. This is not adding much to any of the articles. Let it go. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 4.5 S, 2.5 O. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 00:54:15 (UTC)

Reason

This is a fine photo showing home of the Prime Minister of Madagascar, taken on a clear day in Antananarivo. About the only way to get a better angle of the building from this distance is to be hovering in a helicopter over the side of the step hill it is sitting on top of. I had access to the balcony of a college student's residence, which provided a direct shot of the building. There is no significant compression artifacts or image noise that I can see. The photo is of a historical site in Madagascar, and more featured articles are likely to display it as Lemurbaby continues pumping out FAs for Madagascar's cultural history.

Articles in which this image appears

Andafiavaratra Palace, Rainilaiarivony

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Maky (formerly Visionholder)

• Support as nominator --– Maky ^« talk » 00:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per poor composition. Tree blocking the building, houses blocking the building and then getting cut off, random van and worker along the bottom (quite blurred and thus even more distracting). An encyclopedic picture, but not feature worthy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short of cutting down the tree, I don't see how anyone could rectify that problem. As I said, this is the best angle you'll get short of sitting in a helicopter. You can stand at the base of it, but it would be hard to see anything more than just the front of it. Also, there are always people and vans on the street. The man could probably be edited out... but still, given that it's a tourist destination, this is pretty hard to beat. (The van was for shuttling tourists.) – Maky ^« talk » 03:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite sorry, but I feel as if the tree blocking the way detracts too much from the image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Trees and other buildings in the way. Clegs (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Trees blocking the view may not be a sufficient reason for opposing. Since this is in the tropics, it's unclear the view of the building is ever better than this, and people might equally oppose for defoliated trees. I don't know this site, but it seems the vantage point was deliberately chosen. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and not just because this is my nomination. There certainly seems to be cultural bias, no doubt the same type that has led to the denuding of terrain surrounding many Meso American ruins. I guess if it makes the photo-hungry Western tourists happy, then it's the right thing to do... – Maky ^« talk » 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Having been to this site, I can confirm Maky's point about there being no better vantage point other than renting a helicopter (and even then there will probably be trees in the way). The building is on a narrow ridge with steep slopes on either side, and a shot from above or below it would provide a strange angle. As far as whether this is an important subject for a featured photo, I can confirm that this is a very important historic building in Madagascar's capital city, being the palace of the former prime minister Rainilaiarivony, and also currently a museum that houses historic artifacts related to the 19th century Kingdom of Madagascar that were saved from the nearby Queen's palace compound when it burned in a fire/arson in 1995. It was recently in the news when Queen Ranavalona III's crown was stolen from here in January. In terms of the quality of the photo itself, it's really a beautiful shot of the building. The colors are strong, the lighting is good, and capturing the palace at this angle allows the viewer to really appreciate the size and architectural design of the building in a way that a straight-on shot would obscure. There are trees planted at the corners of the compound so they will naturally obscure some of the building but the landscapting is an element of the design of the compound. The image has sufficiently high resolution. Buildings in crowded city centers will inevitably have people or cars near them, but I don't find that these detract from the shot of the building itself (I don't find them a distraction). Lemurbaby (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't doubt that it is an important and notable building. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry to oppose as is a good picture and I understand great effort has been taken for getting a good vantage point. But this is a rather uncharacteristic view (college student's residence), having less EV than seen from the city, and not really illustrating the architecture that well either. From this vantage point much of the building facade is obscured, and the overlap between the corner tower and the dome is unfortunate (unlike here). I think this building is best illustrated by multiple images, one from the city and maybe a close-up of the whole facade. --ELEKHH^T 00:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my access to a college student's living space (the "uncharacteristic view") can be held against the photo. WTF? Seriously? For the record, the first photo you linked to was probably taken by a tourist either legally or illegally standing on someone's roof. (And, yes, tourists do that kind of stuff there. Gotta love Westerners...) Otherwise, the overlap with a corner tower and the dome is inevitable if you want to show that there are four towers and not just two. Anyway, most buildings are best illustrated with multiple images if you have any appreciation of architecture. But I guess given how FPC is defined as an elitist club of only a select few of the best photos, rather than recognizing high-quality photos of encyclopedic content, I guess it's fair to say to that a single photo is sufficient for structures we like to appreciate from only one angle, but any other structure couldn't be featured because there are too many angles needed to fully appreciate it. I can see how architecturally complex structures in compact third-world urban centers that still try to maintain some foliage shouldn't be included in FP.

And no, I'm not picking on you, Elekhh. I've followed voting at FPC for a while, and I have seen more blatantly biased and clique-based voting here than anywhere else. So I'm a little burnt out and put off. But don't worry, I won't be coming back to FPC. – Maky ^« talk » 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this process upsets you that much. You shouldn't take criticism personally, and I think I argued my position. Adding to that, as somebody who appreciates architecture, I don't think the building has been designed to look good from this vantage point, but the other two I indicated. Regarding FPC contributors being a small group you are probably right to some extent, but please don't accuse me of following some kind of group interest, as I am not. I would like to encourage you to obtain further opinions on Commons, where you can nominate your image for Featured, Quality and/or Valued status. See what other people/forums think, my opinion is just one of many. --ELEKHH^T 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 15:45:13 (UTC)

Reason

1. A good quality, sharp image of a prominent school in India. Not many sharp/good-quality images emerge from India, much less of Indian schools.
2. Its main subject is in focus.
3. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail
4. It significantly adds value to the article.

Articles in which this image appears

The Doon School, Dehradun

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

RickTyers

• Support as nominator --RickTyers (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The image is wonderful and, seriously, this is probably the first good school image to emerge from India! :: Merlaysamuel :: Merlaysamuel :  Chat  15:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice image. Mussolinispas (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the contrast and overall texture. Nice use of lighting. Anony1212 (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (3x edit conflict) Unfortunately it doesn't meet the resolution requirements for FP. One of the criteria is that photographs should be a minimum of 1,000 px in either width or height, and this is 600 px wide. The building is hidden by all those trees, and having the photo taken in the shade means the lower half of the photo is just too dark, while the upper half is too bright, and not right either. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there's some intriguing voting going on here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well, what can I say...it's my school :) Love the picture.

Question for Matthewedwards- Isn't limiting the size of the image to 1000px for featured eligibility limiting, in turn, the possibilities of so many wonderful, beautiful pictures out there? If it's really a good image why should 600px matter? Please forgive me if i'm wrong. Only expressing what i thought is a discrepancy in the nominating system. Because there are many good/sharp images which are not 1000px+! And do correct me if I'm wrong...thanks! DoscoinDoon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Thank you all for your comments. I am sorry to learn Matt that this can't meet the resolution requirements but what's intriguing about the comments? Is my photo not good? RickTyers (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's always suspicious when a technically inferior picture is supported by a lot of "unknown" users new to FPC. As the picture clearly doesn't meet the FPC criteria I suggest speedy closure. O.J. (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do I also fall into the category of "unknown" users as you put it... I only supported the image as I've been heavily editing the Doon School page these days. I don't mind for a speedy-closure if this doesn't meet the requirements. I didn't really understand what you meant by 'unknown' users...thanks! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant nothing personal with my comment. As the creator is a Wikipedian it might be possible to obtain a full resolution version which then could be nominated. O.J. (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close doesn't meet minimum size requirements, and as for the size requirements 1000 px is far to small imho, with digital cameras these days it should be far higher, but that is still currently the minimum from the last round of voting on rules.. *sigh* — raekyt 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Per above concerns. Also, why did three users (which are relatively "new" accounts) all make support comments within minutes of each other? Something weird is going on. Dusty777 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear failure. Nominator notified. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 02:03:24 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and interesting poster, and of course we should see more of Greta Garbo on the main page

Articles in which this image appears

The Painted Veil (1934 film)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

William "Galbraith" Crawford, with restoration by User:Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is by William Galbraith Crawford though I can't find a reference at the moment. Yomangani^talk 02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 02:42:03 (UTC)

Reason

I think the real value of this diagram is aesthetic; it "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". Don't get me wrong: there's a lot of relevant information packed into the diagram, but it's hard to describe what it all means, and that compromises its EV. It wouldn't be an ideal image to illustrate an idea in the body of an article, but it serves well as a lead image for p-adic number.

(A similar diagram, 2-adic integers with dual colorings.svg, is used for Pontryagin duality, but it's not as pretty.)

Articles in which this image appears

p-adic number

FP category for this image

Sciences/Mathematics

Creator

Melchoir

• Support as nominator --Melchoir (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Firstly, the image must be in the article for a week. At any rate, the image is pretty, and it does make me want to know more - but I don't think the EV is there at the moment. It isn't immediately clear what one is looking at. After a very quick skim over that paper I'm guessing that we are looking at an embedding of the (compact) group of 3-adic integers into ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}}$ under the addition operation of the ring described in the wiki article. The details of this embedding are not immediately clear to me. I can't see how the group operation works, and I don't know if this embedding has any interesting properties, like if there is some sort of isometry between the p-adic absolute value and the euclidean metric, for example. I can't see anywhere describing how to interpret the colourful circle shapes presumably representing corresponding characters on the discrete Prüfer 3-group. I also don't know what the light grey circles represent - they don't appear in the cited paper. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback; I've expanded the caption to answer two of your questions concerning the meaning of the visual elements. For the other questions, I'm not sure how the diagram could be improved to better convey that information. There are theoretical challenges:
    1. There's no representation of the 3-adic integers that would make their group structure obvious by its inherent symmetry. It's possible for the Dihedral group article, for example. But to do it for the p-adic integers, we'd pretty much need a counterexample to the Hilbert–Smith conjecture. Part of the group operation could be acted out in an animation, but that would have to be a separate diagram.
    2. It would also be impossible to have an isometry between the p-adic metric and the Euclidean metric. (The chosen embedding is, however, Hölder continuous and measure-preserving, so there's that.) The metric structure is actually present in the diagram: the light grey circles are precisely the open balls in the 3-adic metric.
  • The image has been in the article for three weeks, so that shouldn't be a problem. Melchoir (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got my months confused :). I'll respond to the above when I'm at home and have a bit more time. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 08:58:41 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality picture of a Chinese Water Deer; good encyclopedic value

Articles in which this image appears

Water deer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

William Warby

• Support as nominator --—Bruce1ee^talk 08:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Can't find the focus point. Everything (even the grass below, which should be in focus somewhere) is slightly fuzzy. Clegs (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – The image doesn't have a good angle for visual identification of the water deer, especially the head with the tusks should be a lot clearer in a featured picture of this animal. – Editør (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shown in captivity, not its natural habitat. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Clegs and Editør. Being captive isn't enough for me to oppose, though I do think wild images have better EV (they indicate habitat, among other things). JJ Harrison (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 14:13:25 (UTC)

Reason

Gives a sense of the terrain around Rote Nase; decent EV for Cable Car. This section completed by Clegs since nominator left it blank.

Articles in which this image appears

Rote Nase; Cable Car

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles. This section completed by Clegs since nominator left it blank.

Creator

SteGrifo27

• Support as nominator --SteGrifo27 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Good quality, not much EV for Rote Nase, maybe some EV for cable car. Clegs (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's something that feels slightly 'off' about the image; I think there's a bit of subtle over-processing. I don't know whether it was something that happened in-camera or was applied afterward, and I may be being too picky—it's only really jarring if I go pixel peeping. There are some artifacts of over-sharpening on the 'feet' of the car, and along parts of the cable. It also looks like the chroma noise filtering might have been a touch too aggressive; a lot of the rocks – particularly the ones peeking through the snow – have a very 'flat' look to them.) Overall, the picture is quite visually striking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looks like aggressive luminance noise reduction, which is strange considering the low ISO. I'm not familiar with the camera used to take this picture, but I suspect the noise reduction was applied in-camera. The original unedited version can be found on the picture page. It's slightly darker and uncropped, but exhibits the very same noise reduction as the FPC. O.J. (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 07:31:22 (UTC)

Reason

A nice and illustrative panorama by talented Diliff

Articles in which this image appears

Primrose Hill, London

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - My first thought on seeing this? Snapshot. Nice colours and whatnot, might have EV for a picnic or something, but doesn't really look like a hill and I don't see much EV for London Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EV is by showing the view of London for one who is in Primrose Hill, and by displaying it as a public space. Tomer T (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Primrose Hill is a viewpoint and public green space; it isn't a hill/mountain that people admire by looking at it. Colin°^Talk 13:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this illustrates the subject well. It is a popular public space so the people are essential to the picture and he's lucky that they are all acting normally rather than looking at the camera or taking pictures themselves. Plus this is certainly a stitched pic and I can't see any errors. Did he tell everyone to sit still for a minute? There's great detail in the view of London and the picture has everything sharp from near to far. The weather was good and the sky clear enough to avoid the skyscrapers being lost in a haze. One negative is the slight distortion at the extreme edges of the skyline, where the buildings are angled outwards very slightly. If this could be fixed, using the originals, that would be great, but is a minor point in the overall picture. Colin°^Talk 08:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crisco. Nothing special here. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose. Snapshotty. Might have good EV, except for the copse of trees in the middle is blocking the view of most of the field. Try reshooting 50 feet further to the right. Clegs (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of taking the photo from the top of a hill is that it's the top. You can't move 50 feet to the right without being half way down the hill and no longer having a vantage point. It's easy to say "snapshotty" without having any knowledge of what thought processes went into it. The EV, for whatever it's worth, is that it's the view from the top. Too bad if there are some trees in the way of the view to the bottom. That's the way they designed the park. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If you don't know the area it might be easy to say snapshotty, but if you do you'd know it captures the environment very well. It's a very clean and natural depiction of a very public place. Obviously taken at the top of the hill, which is the best vantage point for displaying it for what it's purpose is -- a viewpoint. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Wikipedia is for learning about things you don't already know, right? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disingenuous. Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is, but FPC is not. FPC is for judging images on the basis of what can be learned from them (EV), not judging them on what you think you know the subject/composition but are actually mistaken about. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 04:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it seems like quite a few of us are saying that nothing can be learned here. Learning implies novelty, and Matthew Edwards referred explicitly to "if you do know it", which is not learning, it's knowing already. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't understand your comment at all PLW2. I'm not sure that "learning" is a necessary requirement for FP. I've just had a pic of an everyday steam iron promoted. Who learned anything new there? But it is a good illustration IMO. Primrose hill is a viewpoint. For someone who hasn't been there, they will learn what the view from Primrose hill looks like. The photo has a nice composition where the folks are looking inwards rather than in random directions. This leads the eye towards the view. There's a real 3D depth to the photograph. I wish I took "snapshots" like this. Colin°^Talk 09:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am baffled, frankly, that you apparently uploaded the steam iron image without thinking it would have some utility. Anyway, you're actually disagreeing with Diliff, who introduced the term "learning" as a criterion, above. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think Colin disagreed with me so much as had a different idea of what learning meant in this context. He never said it had no utility, that was you putting words in his mouth. Anyway, you seem to be deliberately missing the point, which is that nobody is saying you need to have been there before to appreciate the EV, they're simply saying that having been there makes you a little more qualified to comment on how representative it is of the subject. Some of the people you refer to who haven't been there have seemingly misunderstood the EV of the image, thinking that since it apparently doesn't look like a hill, it loses EV or that it's a failed attempt to illustrate London. It exists in the London article but the primary EV is for the Primrose Hill article where it is the lead image. You're also utterly wrong in my opinion when you say that learning implies novelty. You could possibly argue that novelty is desired quality of a FP but certainly not that it's a necessary component of anything educational. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry, but for the sake of the English language, I will have to insist that one cannot learn something one knows already. If you want to redefine the meaning of words, please don't expect to be able to communicate with other people. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Once again you fixate on one minor point (it wasn't even my own, I was just addressing it on behalf of Colin) which you have willingly misunderstood in order to discredit, while otherwise failing to address the body of the argument. So predictable. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think all three of us are failing to communicate successfully here. Oh well. Colin°^Talk 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Regardless of whether this passes or not, I spotted a minor stitching fault along the horizon, as well as the slight bowing of the horizon as mentioned above, so I'll try to re-stitch this in the next 24 hours or so if I have the time. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Uploaded over the top of the old one. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted. The new pic has a cooler colour temperature? Colin°^Talk 09:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears so, actually. I reprocessed it from scratch and I guess I didn't get the balance exactly the same as last time. Do you find it too cool? It's fairly trivial to stitch again. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you remember if it was a warm day or a cool day :-) I only noticed because I saw the thumbnail for the older version was warmer. It looks fine. Colin°^Talk 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great panorama.--GoP_T^C_N 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find it to be a very good illustration of the park, its uses, and the topography (i.e. shows relative height of the hill), so plenty of EV. The article could be much improved as currently stands for (1) the land form (2) the park and (3) the district, which I find bit confusing, but that's a separate issue. --ELEKHH^T 23:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Does add value as the lead image in the article and is high resolution and detailed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Crisco, Papa Lima Whiskey 2 and Clegs. Snapshotty. Could be anywhere. No real sense of place. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fascinating photo, so much detail of the park and a huge amount of London landmarks. TehGrauniad (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2012 at 19:18:59 (UTC)

Reason

Nice candid pic of a celebrity

Articles in which this image appears

Jon Heder, Napoleon Dynamite (TV series) +1

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

GageSkidmore

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 19:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible for the background, specifically the ComicCon logo, to be blurred and whitened a bit more? Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurry, noisy, poor lighting, eyes in shadow. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Primarily the blur - Although not noticable in the thumbnail, it's very blurry. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per JJ Harrison/Diliff. Using f2.8 at 300mm on a crop sensor seems to be asking for a miracle if one wants a portrait with the eyes in sharp focus. However, maybe that's a valid choice if one is aiming for a photo that's good at typical webpage size with a nice blurry background. Plus there doesn't seem to be any room to adjust the ISO or speed without making things worse. Some chroma noise reduction and more luck with the focus would made the difference. Colin°^Talk 18:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it's a miracle that the photo isn't much blurrier. 1/40s exposure at f/2.8 and ISO 800 with an effective focal length of about 500mm. Must have been very dark. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Noise and blur. Clegs (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2012 at 12:48:44 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality, interesting topic (frogs mating)

Articles in which this image appears

amplexus, common toad

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Bernie Kohl

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent photograph and good EV. There's also a 16-bit TIFF version and the license couldn't be more open. Colin°^Talk 13:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wondered if slight sharpening would help to address the DOF issue here. It's not far off, but just enough to be marginally annoying. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I could give it a run through GIMP tomorrow. Little late tonight, since a download would take 10 minutes and the upload 20 (my connection sucks) Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From my point of view it is an absolute no-no to sharpen out of focus areas. A photograph is not a 3d-rendering and always has narrow depth of field. It would be technically feasible to recover all the blurred detail through deconvolution sharpening, but as soon as you run a standard sharpening filter over the image you end up destroying the photographer's initial work. When I created the image I carefully masked out the pixels within the field of focus and sharpened them using a high-pass filter. Now if you want more sharpness I can increase the strength of the filter, but please don't destroy the photograph just because some people are too technically minded. --Bernie Kohl (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point. Unless someone else objects, I'll leave it alone. If I do run it through a sharpener, it would be uploaded separately. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet FP criterion #7; see also Wikipedia:Caption#Succinctness. —Eustress ^talk 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Really confused about captions. Colin°^Talk 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trimmed a sentence. Seems I'm not the only one getting mixed signals with captions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV, pretty photo. I don't see the caption problem. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good macro photo with good EV. Would have liked to see it from a slightly higher vantage point though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If it were to have just one of the jello background and lack in foreground focus, I'd let it slip, but seeing that we're apparently prevented from fixing shortcomings without incurring wrath, I'm going to have to oppose. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent. O.J. (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator in Commons. Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good shot. Clegs (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice lighting and background --Fir0002 03:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Amplexus Bufo bufo 2010-03-29.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2012 at 07:11:23 (UTC)

Reason

Best in scope

Articles in which this image appears

Zizula hylax

FP category for this image

Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor (talk)

• Support as nominator --Jkadavoor (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Some compression artifacts and smaller than the typical butterfly/insect image of FPC. ZooFari (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the crop. Subject should be centered in this case. ZooFari (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Size is good, crop is good, but there's too much artifacting. Clegs (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't have a problem with the off-center framing, though a close crop to the subject would get close to the minimum permitted size. The sharpening artifacts are too jarring for a featured picture, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose nothing really wrong with it, but resolution a bit meh. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2012 at 07:11:23 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful pic of functional artwork crafted in the 19th century, rich in EV as an illustration of a significant landmark and of symbolism in religion

Articles in which this image appears

Salt Lake Temple, Temple (LDS Church), Beehive

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture or Other

Creator

SiLver sKY, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 01:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Some unfortunate issues like out of focus, blown regions, and perspective issue (somehow skewed, but I would have preferred an angled composition so that we could see how it's a knob). ZooFari (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Out of focus at full size. Clegs (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support It's out of focus, so it really should have an oppose, but I'm really intrigued by the image. It's really eyecatching. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose; it's quite striking, but the focus problem is too much even at reduced sizes. (Also, should the image be straightened?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2012 at 04:29:05 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality, high EV... and perfect for Halloween!

Articles in which this image appears

Saturn Devouring His Son, Black Paintings, Saturn (mythology) and more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Francisco Goya

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Obviously FP material but I'm not keen on the caption. Its one of his many untitled works (this might give the impression that it his only untitled work), the exact measurements aren't really important as they probably aren't the original dimensions, and "towards his death" seems odd, especially as he later moved to France and continued painting; he lived for at least 5 years after completing the Black Paintings. Yomangani^talk 00:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Better? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, I have tweaked the capt somebit, but its a messy one to get into so many words. Regardless, its an excellent reproduction, and an amazing image. Well done and txs for bring it here. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, much, much, much longer then. Votes welcome, of course... Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Spelling touched up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Trimmed for your pleasure. Ceoil (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perfect, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose-- We studied this piece in great detail in my art appreciation class last semester. I and quite a bit of the rest of the class came to the conclusion that the work is mildly disturbing yet utterly lacking in meaning. Some even said it appeared to have been painted with nothing in mind other than baseless shock and provocation. If this is the emotion the artist meant to provoke, I can't say he didn't accomplish that. Enthdegree (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you may be correct, I don't think its status as an FPC should be determined by its artistic meaning and emotional response to the image, according to the featured picture criteria. Spencer^T♦C 05:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not supposed to play art critic at FPC for works which are individually notable themselves. See, for example, this. There's another where it was debated heavily, but I don't have that link available. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The biggest issue is that I don't think it is striking enough to interest the reader. This picture does not make me want to learn more about the painting, the series of paintings, the artist himself or even Spanish culture. Enthdegree (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a little closer to the FP criteria, but I think your experiences studying art may be affecting how you see it. How would a lay-person (i.e. one who has never studied art) look at the image? Would they want to know about the painting? I think yes. It's not used in the Goya article or in an article about Spanish culture, so that's neither here nor there. As for the image not being interesting, it seems there are 10 users who have it in their user space. One has it on a page labeled "Favourite artworks", so it's clear that there are people who enjoy this painting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Definitely one of Goya's most notable works. O.J. (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. a13ean (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High quality scan, very significant work. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support e^xtra999 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One sick mofo, but art. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Francisco de Goya, Saturno devorando a su hijo (1819-1823).jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2012 at 13:24:33 (UTC)

Reason

Striking reproduction of a famous piece of art. Nice use of empty space, high resolution and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

The Dog (Goya), Black Paintings, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Francisco Goya

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was worried at first that the dimensions were off, but they seem to be accurate. I've never seen this one before- striking. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'll break my rule for this one. Yomangani^talk 16:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beautiful and unusual work by a famous painter. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - fascinating piece. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a way better part of the series than 'Saturn Devouring His Son'. Enthdegree (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Incredible! Dusty777 (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Piling on. Clegs (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most beautiful painting in the world. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Goya Dog.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2012 at 07:31:41 (UTC)

Reason

Extremely high resolution, notable artwork.

Articles in which this image appears

The Princess from the Land of Porcelain, Google Art Project

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

James Abbott McNeill Whistler

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - "The things are all very well of their kind, but damn their kind!" (Never cared much for the Freer, to be honest.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seems a little blurry at the top. Is it just me? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm looking at the 6 in the signature, and I don't see blur. I see the texture of the canvas. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What 6? I don't see a 6. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The six at the end of his signature, where it says "1864". Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that, even when I look at the full view. Where is it? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Viewer's top left corner. First you should see "Whistler", then next to it is the year 1864. It's fairly big at full resolution. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can barely see something is there at full resolution. Do you have some kind of humongous screen? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 1024x600, better known as "tiny". Odd, which viewer are you using? I'm using the non-flash in Firefox. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see it in the thumbnail. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Amazing reproduction. Colin°^Talk 11:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Brandmeister^talk 16:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit per Colin. I like the lighter edit. Clegs (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support edit. Original is It's just a little too dark as it currently stands. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lightened version is much better. Shows that the current version is not ideal. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a full size edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And do you support or oppose the full-size edit? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm the uploader - just wanted to note that this is not the full resolution work (the full version is 4.0 gigapixels and over a gigabyte in size, far too large for Commons or even to represent as a single JPEG file). However I do provide a download of the full original tile set on the file description page. I also prefer the brighter version and may consider globally moving existing uses to that one. Dcoetzee 04:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I much prefer the lightened version as well. Whether or not it passes (unless the darker image is promoted), I'll be putting it in the article that I wrote mainly to allow this nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit: Very good, nothing of concern. Edit is an improvement. Julia\^talk 18:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:James McNeill Whistler - La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine - brighter.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2012 at 13:21:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality capture of this shy species in its natural environment. Shows the full beastie, including the full laterally-compressed tail used for swimming, the nuchal and vertebral crests along its length, and the extended toes and claws used for climbing, making it high-EV. Also unlike other images of it taken elsewhere, this one clearly shows how the colouration provides camouflage against the grey lichen covered rocks along the waterways where it lives. Reptiles seem to be becoming few and far between at FPC.

Articles in which this image appears

Australian water dragon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent photo, especially as it shows the effectiveness of these reptiles camouflage. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support highly encyclopedic picture, although Mrs. Crisco wouldn't like it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer edit Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Dull lighting and insufficient background contrast IMO. (This means, for example, that the under-chin coloured area has insufficient detail.) I prefer both File:Physignathus lesueurii howittii.jpg and (COI disclosure) File:Eastern_Water_Dragon_Clontarf.jpg, although yours is the best full-body shot. The camouflage issue is a tricky one, but I think it can be demonstrated without making the picture visually difficult, for example in File:Eastern_Water_Dragon_Clontarf.jpg the rock and skin colour are both clearly shown, but they do not blend into one another. --99of9 (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the natural habitat is shady waterways. I guess we could drag in some heavy duty external lighting in the hope of catching one with it unaware, or else just settle for cut-off images taken in suburbia or wildlife parks where it will be out in the open, and sans that pesky camouflage (possibly a pure white b/g would go well). And when you actually open the image up to bigger sizes the camouflage doesn't make it 'visually difficult' at all, but it does work well at smaller sizes, a reflection of how camouflage works in nature. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support My criticism is that quite a bit of the front, including the front is in partial shadow. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit added. Brandmeister^talk 00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Tomer T (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only orginial per nom. Clegs (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Which one? I see one clear preference, but I'm hesitant to promote the edit on such a thin indication, also due to the significant burnt highlights (and there's a late "per nom" vote as well). Can we get some more hands before this ends up yet another addition to the D&R queue? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably the edit, but I'll have a look on a decent monitor first. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'd oppose the edit for blown highlight reasons, but it does look closer to my experience with the species. What about using curves instead of the brightness tool, or masking the adjustment a bit? JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aust Gippsland Water Dragon, Physignathus lesueurii howittii, MRNP, jjron, 13.02.2012.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it's not a promotion without Clegs' vote, and others only expressed preferences, I'm giving it to the original. If JJH or others want to upload something lighter, it can go through D&R. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 02:59:22 (UTC)

Reason

Dramatic illustration of the scale and dimensions of the small lock at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, showing details of maintenance operations. Good color, contrast, resolution, and reflections in water that are both interesting and informative.

Articles in which this image appears

Hiram M. Chittenden Locks

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology

Creator

Dennis Bratland

• Support as nominator --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Because it's not possible to see the top of the lock anywhere in the frame – except in a reflection – or the overall outline of the lock, it's difficult to identify the subject as a lock (as opposed to a generic image of a person power-washing the side of a concrete warehouse). A portrait oriented image with a slightly wider field of view might be more effective; compare, for example, with File:Locks-1.jpg, which shows one of the large locks in the same complex. (Also, this nomination technically shouldn't be considered for another week, as it was only uploaded a few hours ago.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ballard Locks is a huge complex spread over a wide area, with different parts that perform several different functions. Most of it is underwater most of the time. You can show an aerial view giving the general layout, as the lead image does, but after that, you're limited to a series of closeups showing details of each of the parts, and schematic drawings that untangle the complexity, as in the fish ladder schematic. So the encyclopedic value is only as one of many necessary illustrations for this subject.

  The reason File:Locks-1.jpg gives a wider view is that the large lock is larger. The camera is on the west gate, 825 ft from the opposite gate. The small lock is less than 2/10ths as long and 3/8ths as wide. The distance from the vantage point on the small lock's gate to the opposite gate is only 150 ft, yet both locks are about equally deep. With the small lock, you can either look down into the lock and see the floor of the drained lock, or up at the surrounding area, but since you're so close, you can't see it all at once. If File:Ballard Locks cleaning 2012-03-16 06.jpg were panned up high enough to show morre the surface, you'd not see the bottom at all. That's with a 40mm lens. You'd be introducing distortion with a lens wide enough to get it all. It's a good point, but you can't compare photos of the large and small locks that way; they're two different subjects.

  If the opportunity arises, I'll take more photos when the drain the large lock, which is normally in November, for comparison. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I was wrong. I didn't think it would work, but I went back and tried some portrait shots as TenOfAllTrades suggested, and actually you can get some view of the surroundings and the bottom of the small lock. The upstream gate's walkway was open this time, so I was able to shoot from the opposite end and have the Salmon Bay Bridge bascule in the background. Probably something like File:Ballard Locks Cleaning 2012-03-18 03.jpg or File:Ballard Locks Cleaning 2012-03-18 06.jpg. There are more photos of cleaning the small lock in Media related to Cleaning Hiram M. Chittenden Locks at Wikimedia Commons --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 10ofAllTrades. Clegs (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The image's framing and composition is somewhat cluttered at first but it makes me want to know what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthdegree (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please do try to retake this photo in November! See you then! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 00:36:42 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful, high resolution, notable painting. I've checked with this reference, and the colours seem accurate. (Bonus points: Featured article)

Articles in which this image appears

Rokeby Venus, Venus with a Mirror, and more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Diego Velázquez, colours by Jan Arkesteijn

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't seen the actual painting to compare, but it looks bleached. Maybe some saturation is warranted. Brandmeister^talk 11:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see if Google Art Project has the image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt - the one labeled "True original" has better coloring. Clegs (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support More concerned about which is correct. The virtual tour of the museum shows the painting with colours like the first image here. I'll support whichever is the more correct. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt I'm going to assume that the NPG took the care to get the colours right. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt: colour detail is much better. Julia\^talk 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RokebyVenus.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 13:31:23 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality, good pose. Essentially an "action shot" despite being a painting.

Articles in which this image appears

Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, writer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Francisco Goya

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good reproduction. Clegs (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5. Worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 14:54:56 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and frame

Articles in which this image appears

Posture (psychology)

FP category for this image

psychology

Creator

User:Alborzagros

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Image hasn't been in the article at least 1 week. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not adding significantly to the article it is in and I'm doubtful there is such a thing as a "baby posture". More like a "cute pose", of which there are endless possibilities. Technically, the picture suffers from being taken with a compact camera in terms of noise and sharpness. There's strong vignetting at the corners. Also, a picture of a child in a private place needs some evidence of permission (see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). It is a nice picture, but not outstanding. It could be improved a little by cropping in a portrait orientation to eliminate some of the wall and the corner vignetting. Colin°^Talk 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A beautiful child, like most children are, and a nice posture. Also, probably a very special one for the photographer or the nominator. But it doesn't have any significant encyclopaedic value and image quality is on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Snapshot. Cute, but a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't see the EV. Nothing very unique about this picture... I have 100 just like it of my niece and nephew. Dusty777 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a really nice image, and I personally like the vignetting. But people are right, that the encyclopedic value of it is a bit lacking. Please keep taking photos, though! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 09:57:02 (UTC)

Reason

We have a shortage of good snake images on Wikipedia. This is one of the really nice ones, taken in the wild.

Articles in which this image appears

Snake, Garter snake and two others

FP category for this image

Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Steve Jurvetson

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some blurriness could be a concern, but the species and its rolled-out tongue outplay that for me. Brandmeister^talk 11:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support blurriness. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Good shot, nice job getting the tongue, but the fact that the head is just a little OOF gives me a pause. Clegs (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tongue has unavoidable motion blur, but the head is in focus. The scales on the head are smooth, while those on the body are keeled. That's how it is in nature. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, call it noise or artifacting. For some reason, the head does not look sharp. Clegs (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a subtle noise reduction and uploaded over the top. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Tomer T (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Nice subject and colours, shame the tongue is not in focus... Also would have cropped it a bit more widescreen to improve composition --Fir0002 03:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak neutral I really don't know with this one. It looks kind of artefacted, and the white scales seem blown, but the head is pretty nicely in focus, and the habitat is great too. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support b/c the head is slightly out of focus. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: not a perfect image, but good res and meets criteria. Julia\^talk 22:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Coast Garter Snake.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 23:10:21 (UTC)

Reason

We're fortunate to have some good quality videos on Wikipedia; they're more difficult to pull off well, the file size and type restrictions are limiting, and yet they are best at illustrating certain topics. Here's a chance to recognise a good video from the world of sport. Perhaps one you're not all that familiar with: river surfing on man-made standing waves. A bit of comedy wipe out towards the end makes this one even more of a keeper, I think!

Articles in which this image appears

Eisbach

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Zxb

• Support as nominator --Julia\^talk 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Love the wipe out. Jujutacular (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It was a pain to watch on my slow connection, but worth it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5. Worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2012 at 11:07:52 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and detail, beautiful painting.

Articles in which this image appears

Diana and Actaeon (Titian) +5

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Titian

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good digitalization, no cutoff (many would like to be Actaeon there). Brandmeister^talk 23:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't the same as the linked source version. Where did it come from? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to have come from the National Gallery Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 01:54:53 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, striking pose, interesting person (one of very few women artists during the Renaissance)

Articles in which this image appears

Sofonisba Anguissola +4

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Sofonisba Anguissola

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Subpar quality at full size, but interesting. Brandmeister^talk 02:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 00:17:07 (UTC)

Reason

Some great concert photography.

Articles in which this image appears

Emilie Autumn

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

AreYouSuffering.de, edited by Papa Lima Whiskey 2

• Support either --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per framing. It looks like she's holding a baton or something, which is cut off. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's a violinist. But her bow is not really the subject of the image... Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I much prefer File:Emilie Autumn at Nachtleben 2007 bis.jpg. More EV, as it indicates her profession. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak support ALT - Uploader advertises higher resolution images, but his site seems to be down. Current image is barely the minimum. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you don't like it, don't suggest it. :) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, you can prefer something but not like it. "I'd prefer to be fed to wolves rather than be discussed at AN/I," or "I'd prefer having my tooth pulled over watching Plan 9 from Outer Space" Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Tomer T (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I tagged the original image as needing OTRS (no permission since), a web forum appears to be who uploaded it, it seems unlikely they're the photographers of the photograph, or at least the we need evidence they're the copyright holder, forum seems to be some sorta fan forum for music of that type. Suggest this nomination is placed on hold until copyright concerns are cleared up. — raekyt 21:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, people seem to be supporting the Alt. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose first has very bad composition and copyright problems. second is quite low-quality if you click through and view high-res. unsharp, very small depth of field. (any image just over 100 kb is likely to have problems.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, interestingly, I have the flickr user's street address, but no email, and he hasn't verified an email address on WP afaict. The picture was clearly taken at higher quality, so the possibility exists, if only he can be contacted. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be nice... I'd give a full-size version of the ALT full support in a heartbeat. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt per above, oppose original because the microphone is blocking the subject's face. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Support alt. Barely meets size requirements but it is quite good otherwise. Jujutacular (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Alt is barely big enough and has focus issues even at this small size. Clegs (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both. Original is lacking compositionally, alt per Clegs. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 00:17:07 (UTC)

Reason

A while ago I took a picture of a white-lipped snail, and as I was browsing Wikipedia today I noticed my old snail picture was being used on the banner. Cool! Anyway, that reminded me to upload this one, which I took last year. I think the picture might be a little oversharpened, but I have a pretty bad monitor right now, and when I was shooping to stack a few shots I wasn't sure if it was too much or too little....

Articles in which this image appears

Grove snail

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs

Creator

Mad Max

• Support as nominator --Mad Max (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as re-animator. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- Seems a little OOF at the back of the shell. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Posterisation in background and mediocre sharpness. Background is also quite busy. Has a real digicam feel to it IMO. --Fir0002 03:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Impressive resolution, but extremely shallow DOF hurts it overall. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The focus claim is something you'll see on almost every single mollusc nom - due to the squishy translucent material they're made of, they just never look in focus. You can sharpen them, but then they'll just look dried up. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can see that along its "backbone" this seems to be in focus really nicely, but further back by its foot that's obviously oof, isn't it? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we'd want the background to be much sharper, and I don't think the composition is worth changing either. I'm also not aware that there are any diagnostic features on the top of the hind end of the foot. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 00:32:14 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent illustration of an antique Roman house.

Articles in which this image appears

Domus

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams

Creator

Ohto Kokko (original png version), PureCore (vectorisation), Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (minor changes)

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a reference for the parts of the building? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This PDF has a bibliography if you're looking for print media: [27] Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Nah, just wanted to see if it was accurate. Although I don't read Dutch without Google Translate, it looks fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very unique! Jujutacular (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know how this was made, but the top image at least looks like something you could knock up in Sketchup in about 5 mins if you roughly knew what you were doing. No indication of scale, referencing isn't great. --24.43.75.194 (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5. Worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 01:23:35 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution portrait, infobox image in an important article

Articles in which this image appears

Francisco Goya, Vicente López y Portaña

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment (artists go here, right?)

Creator

Vicente López y Portaña

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Clegs (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Although I don't consider myself particularly adept at reviewing digitisations of paintings, I've looked for issues and can find none. The colours and quality seem good. Julia\^talk 21:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Two for the price of one... for the artwork itself and the artist it depicts. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vicente López Portaña - el pintor Francisco de Goya.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2012 at 22:38:11 (UTC)

Reason

Suprisingly high quality and very high EV for 1899 Michigan Wolverines football team

Articles in which this image appears

1899 Michigan Wolverines football team

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Fred Rentschler

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice! —Eustress ^talk 02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support e^xtra999 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Valuable -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm suspicious of the tint here; I have a feeling this is a grayscale scan which has had a sepia tone applied in photoshop. I have no proof; it's just a hunch. I guess that adds up to weak support; the image is otherwise ideal. Chick Bowen 03:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Shouldn't individuals be identified on image page as they are for things like band photos, otherwise EV is a bit short? They seem to be identified in the article. --24.43.75.194 (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be added. As you said, we have the relevant information. Tomer T (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:1899 Michigan Wolverines football team.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2012 at 14:13:25 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, very notable painting and important in the history of visual arts, notable artist

Articles in which this image appears

The Third of May 1808, Francisco de Goya, and about 15 more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Francisco de Goya

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT as well, before you ask. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a border visible on the left-hand side of the image. Any way to remove it? I'm assuming it's not part of the painting. —Eustress ^talk 19:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible by cropping, but it requires special software due to the image's size. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fantastic. The frame/border on the LHS isn't a big issue IMO. Colin°^Talk 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Notable painting and insane resolution. O.J. (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. per Ottojula and PLW2. Clegs (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 which I'm trying to upload. It has a conservatively thinner black margin on the left. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So what's happening? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if that was directed at me. Per convention, since I voted, I won't be closing this. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, poor formatting. It was more directed at Makeemlighter, Julia, or Jjron (or any other editors who often close). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And have not voted here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado thin black margin.jpg —Julia\^talk 16:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 09:28:32 (UTC)

Reason

Good illustration of what is a tidepool, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Tidepool, Marine habitats

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

Alvesgaspar

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although a higher angle would probably be nicer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not striking enough. Snapshotty. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Striking for me! :) Jujutacular (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Awkward composition and fairly average image quality for a static shot. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the main point here is that even at low tide, the pools are being replenished in a feng shui manner, and that fact is well-illustrated. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Boring composition and meh quality. Clegs (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 16:31:01 (UTC)

Reason

High quality air photo of an at-grade expressway.

Articles in which this image appears

Veterans Memorial Parkway, limited access road (expressway)

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology

Creator

Adam Colvin

• Support as nominator --Haljackey (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Photo has been edited. The original can be found here: [28]. Haljackey (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not an expert in photography, but personally, I think you went a bit too far with the contrast and colours. Got any more information on what we're looking at? There's no geo-tagging or information in the file summary about where this is located. Also, it seems we're looking at about a mile-long stretch of road.. Is this a fair representation of the entire route? Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If I went too far with the photo editing, the original is available ([29]) for a retouch. Yes this is a fair representation of the entire route. There is a ongoing discussion at Wikiproject: Highways about geo-taging and coordinate systems. Once a consensus is reached, it can be added to the photo and road's article. Haljackey (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm from Windsor (2 hours away from London), but I can vouch that much of South-Eastern Ontario looks like that. Greener than I remember though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Current. Blown sky and oversaturation. Would reconsider if a good edit is made. Clegs (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with the comments that the edit is oversaturated. However even the original has a blown sky so that can't be fixed. The original upload is lacking in contrast. Ultimately, this is a 0.7 MP photo of a piece of road. The camera used is capable of 6MP images. If you have the full size original, you should really upload that rather than a small wallpaper sized reduction. However, even a larger version wouldn't probably have anyone going wow and we'd then start noticing the limitations of the small sensor on image quality. Colin°^Talk 11:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too distorted. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Creator has sent me a higher-resolution file. I have uploaded it, unedited, as there was opposition to the photo editing. Haljackey (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a 1.9 MP file. Still pretty stingy. Why can't you get hold of the original? BTW: the description page says the permission is "to use on Wikipedia". That's not an allowed restriction. I see there's an OTRS ticket so presumably full permission has been given but the description text needs to remove that restriction. Images on Commons can be used for any purpose whatsoever. Colin°^Talk 08:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the largest size he has. I have changed the description as the OTRS overrides it yet this text wasn't taken out. Haljackey (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Because of the awful sky. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2012 at 12:27:11 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, sharp, interesting subject (mating butterflies)

Articles in which this image appears

Papilio demoleus, List of butterflies of Sri Lanka (Papilionidae)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ooooh, pretty. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, superb. Brandmeister^talk 23:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the colors look superb --Guerillero | My Talk 01:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support e^xtra999 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A good shot, but composition means it's not a great shot - too tight on the LHS butterfly's proboscis --Fir0002 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched my archives and found another one [30] taken from a bit more distance; so more space around, but less (at least) subject details. Whether it can be added as an ALT? If then, please. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly, add it as an alt. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt - thanks for taking the time to find that version, I'm just surprised you did not upload this one originally! Nice work --Fir0002 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Impressive. Good EV, no major technical flaws. Dusty777 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt, oppose current because the alt is better. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt only: The composition just needed a little fixing. Julia\^talk 21:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt. Thanks for improving the framing. Clegs (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt I kept holding back on support due to the composition. But alt is very nice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Tomer T (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt little fixing of the framing did the trick. Sanyambahga (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early supporters: are you okay with the alt? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Me too. e^xtra999 (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. I like the alt crop. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. Dusty777 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Papilio demoleus ALT by kadavoor.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 10:43:17 (UTC)

Reason

Also a featured images at Commons and a POTD.

Articles in which this image appears

Hubble Space Telescope

Astronomy

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 10:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Low EV... we have thousands of examples of what the Hubble shows, and this isn't even used in an article on the galaxy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crisco. Tomer T (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It only shows part of the galaxy, hence its non-use in Centaurus A. Its caption in the Hubble article does not support a case for much encyclopaedic value (EV). It might fit better in star formation or stellar evolution. Your best option might be to withdraw and renominate once a good placement has been found that emphasises more specific EV (and give it seven days for other article editors to make further suggestions, as per our current guideline). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 18:37:29 (UTC)

Reason

Nice and illustrative

Articles in which this image appears

Parthenos sylvia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Richard Bartz

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh lighting and there seems to be something amiss with the WB --Fir0002 02:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 18:07:39 (UTC)

Reason

Nice portrait photo, with extra EV in the form of a selection of works

Articles in which this image appears

Alex Steinweiss

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Gottlieb, William P.

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- What's the copyright status of those works in the picture with him? Doubt those are free. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They likely would fall under commons:COM:DM since they're not the focus of the photograph but the artist of them. — raekyt 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be wary of applying de-minimis here as they are fairly prominent. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Crisco about this, and I've uploaded an alt which, while it still includes a bit of a couple of posters, does qualify for de minimis, I think, since the focus is more clearly on Steinweiss and it doesn't include any work in its entirety. I'd suggest that the crop replace the original in articles. Chick Bowen 03:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the original is a possible copyvio, maybe it should be discussed for deletion in commons. Tomer T (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT and nominating the original for deletion to get more feedback on the DM issue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 12:38:22 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, nice pose and lighting

Articles in which this image appears

Nintendo GameCube +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What are the merits for using the PNG with transparent background rather than the JPG? Colin°^Talk 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just nominated this one because it's the one used in articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the JPEG version should be used as the PNG thumbnailer uses a less sophisticated algorithm that generates a blurrier result. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks terrible with a coloured infobox. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I disagree that it looks "terrible".
2. The PNG looks terrible anyway. So where's the win? You can make a JPEG that has the correct background colour if you want to. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The PNG looks poor if dropped on a darker background, because the game has only been crudely cut out rather than blended to transparent -- you get a white halo. This could be fixed by someone with good photoshop skills. It is good enough for the purpose on WP, though a PNG is bigger to download than a JPG. I see that PNG-transparent images have been created for many of the game articles. We haven't done this for any of the other many featured pictures set on a white background, many of which appear in info boxes. I don't think the way the image interacts with this month's colour scheme on the vector skin or some info box template should be our concern. I wouldn't want to encourage photographs as PNGs just because it blends nicely with a light grey info box. Colin°^Talk 14:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jpg back in the article... I'm edit warring myself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nicely executed product shot --Fir0002 02:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JPG. My preference would be for the object to be clearly on a surface rather than floating in whitespace. But it illustrates the product nicely. Colin°^Talk 09:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Fir0002. No reason not to feature. Clegs (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Fir0002 Dusty777 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:GameCube-Set.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 00:03:40 (UTC)

Reason

Something a little different; a small building. A beautiful picture of an interesting subject. Clear EV and charm.

Articles in which this image appears

Harescombe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Saffron Blaze

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Nice Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - cute. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support e^xtra999 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: "St John the Baptise" or "St John the Baptist"? Are we perpetuating a typo here? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's "St John the Baptist" per the Church of England, but "St John the Baptise" according to the Beacon Benefice. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I went with what the little church used in the literature they had on hand inside. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent shot with nice framing and composition. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above... Kind of a neat picture, Good EV. Dusty777 18:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Good composition but slight perspective projection distortion. Sanyambahga (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Harescombe Church.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 10:57:30 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, good framing, striking. Very encyclopedic, showing how one takes a shot

Articles in which this image appears

Wheelchair basketball, Euroleague Basketball

FP category for this image

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

Creator

PierreSelim

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good composition and detail, and I suppose by wheelchair basketball standards, it's an action shot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good sports shot - would like to see some NR on the background though --Fir0002 02:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Valuable -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, tricky shot, well executed. So, this league is unisex? Is that common in wheelchair basketball? It doesn't seem to be the case, just based on our articles, in international play. Chick Bowen 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see this as anything special. Poor focus in the image, ball OOF and with motion blur. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain me how can I shoot an indoor sport action with faster shutter speed (to have the ball in focus and not blurred)? I'm interested in improving but I was already at ISO 1600 and f/2.8. By the way thanks for the nomination and the kind comments. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, by "poor focus in the image", I was refering to the compositional focus. What are we meant to look at in this shot? The 4 players are all looking in different directions. The 2 most important things are either blurred (ball) or not in the shot (hoop). A very messy background does not help things at all, either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok I don't know how to correct all your critics (IMO you are being too harsh). --PierreSelim (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've done quite a bit of indoor sports, and you really are limited by the lighting in the gym. If f/2.8 with 1600 ISO lets you shoot around 1/60 (I'm guessing that's about the shutter speed you used, as the players are sharp but the ball is just blurred), the only way you can improve your shutter speed is to use a flash. Clegs (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The exposure time is 1/320 sec, as you can see in the image metadatas. You can also see that the photograph was 8m away from the action, meaning an external flash would be required. Léna (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose with a focal length of ~70mm, you could shoot with a Canon 85mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.2L wide open. You'd get a less motion-blurred ball but more out of focus players. I'm with the photographer on this one. Short of increasing the ISO and increasing noise, there was not much he could do here. A powerful external flash is also probably neither desirable or fair on the players. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good capture of a dramatic moment, makes the most of lousy light, high encyclopedie value. I would have liked a bit more space on the left part of the pic, but in sports photography it's easier said than done; as is the players make a nice pyramidal composition echoing the shape of the wheelchair's wheels. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The camera settings choice is correct in my view. The level of noise isn't objectionable. A fast prime might help a little, but would lose image stabilisation (which does help) and the flexibility in framing. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Euroleague - LE Roma vs Toulouse IC-27.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 11:02:29 (UTC)

Reason

It's a high resolution and detailed view of the Cathedral Range ridge, showing the topography and flora of the area. Notably, it also shows both the remnants of the bushfire damage that the area sustained in the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, and also the subsequent regeneration.

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral Range (Victoria) and Cathedral Range State Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks quite nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - don't like it. Too busy. Can't tell what the focus is. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Would have been good with some better lighting conditions. Also it seems that the top RHS region (where the open paddocks are) is tilted - perhaps due to warping from stitching the panorama? --Fir0002 02:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would have been nice to have better lighting but I'm not walking it again in a hurry. Great walk, but the spiny bushes (the green bushes on the right in the foreground) along the ridge seem to have taken advantage after the bushfires - they are a killer for bare arms and legs. ;) As for the tilting, I'm not sure. I noticed it too but I couldn't determine if it was real or an illusion as there is a gradual slope down to the road. I'll have a look at whether it's correctable a bit later on. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition feels a bit odd, per MathewTownsend. And indeed, the lighting leaves something to be desired. Jujutacular (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain a bit more about what you think is wrong with the composition? The subject and focus is obviously the ridge, it's in the centre of the frame. As per any wide panorama, it's fairly all-encompassing, and shows the overall structure of the ridge as well as the foreground and flora, so from my point of view, the focus seems obvious. As for the lighting, I don't think it detracts necessarily. Everything that you need to see is perfectly visible, we don't have to have perfect blue skies in every landscape photo... ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The focus of the image is not so obvious to me. My eyes seem drawn first to the valley to the right, then to the foreground, then to the valley on the left. If anything, the ridge seems to cut the image in half, making the composition feeling a bit unsettled to me. However, maybe this is just a quirk of my perception! I definitely wouldn't oppose over the lighting alone. I'm retracting my opposition. Jujutacular (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if we were to look past the exposure issues, much of the image is rather devoid of detail/contrast as a result of that and/or the haze, so this may, in fact, have to be retaken to succeed. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 17:55:54 (UTC)

Reason

Good full-body snake photo, interesting and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Ladder snake

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Benny Trapp

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 1 Tomer T (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Not entirely in focus. Brandmeister^talk 20:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Rather dark. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. Good shot. Clegs (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Jkadavoor (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rhinechis scalaris cropped.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 22:51:59 (UTC)

Reason

Good historical depiction of Inuit people and women in particular.

Articles in which this image appears

Inuit women

FP category for this image

People/Traditional

Creator

Henry G. Kaiser

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 22:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- It needs some clean-up, especially near the left (viewer's left) cheek. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - a nice shot, surprisingly sharp. Clean up wouldn't go astray and as part of that I'd support cloning out the signature - it doesn't add anything to the EV of the image as an illustration of Inuit women --Fir0002 02:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uploaded restored version over the top. I decided to leave the signature as it's most likely the original one and has historical value, providing some clues (otherwise the image would be deceptive). Brandmeister^talk 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The picture has not been in articles listed for seven days per Criteria. Suggest nomination be suspended until March 27th. Dusty777 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind. Brandmeister^talk 10:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2012 at 11:26:52 (UTC)

Reason

High Resolution, Sharp, Clear, Beautiful

Articles in which this image appears

Groton School

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Jplayforth

• Support as nominator --Merlaysamuel :  Chat  11:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The sky is one giant blown highlight (among a few others), light noise throughout the picture, and the building on the left looks like it is leaning to the left. Dusty777 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dusty Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dusty. Clegs (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unfortunately poor stitching. Not so bothered by the blown sky (although it would be much better to take it at a different time of day so you're not shooting straight into the sun), but you can see quite clearly on the horizon that the distortion has not been corrected - instead the panorama has been been 'bent' at the seam lines. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2012 at 23:36:11 (UTC)

Reason

This large, free image of actor Stanley Holloway is a clear, concise, sharp and well lit illustration which clearly identifies the subject and appears to be of a high quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Stanley Holloway, Stanley Holloway on stage, screen and record

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Allan Warren

• Support as nominator --Cassianto (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Jpg artefacting and noise. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Crisco, very heavy jpeg artifacts. Jujutacular (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As a non-photographer, I have absolutly no idea what "jpeg artifacts" means - I just thought it was a nice image. Oh well, I have not lost anything by trying. Thanks for the comments! -- Cassianto (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha ha! Me too. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glossary helps somewhat, sometimes. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry for the lingo! The compression artifact article should be helpful. It is indeed a nice image, but it is to heavily compressed. Thanks for nominating! Jujutacular (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 01:04:45 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, interesting design.

Articles in which this image appears

The Vanishing American, might have some value in a "Native Americans in popular culture" article to discuss stereotypes

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of Paramount Pictures or a subsidiary, restored by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, no issues imo. Brandmeister^talk 13:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 15:02:20 (UTC)

Reason

A good quality high resolution image of a newly constructed museum in India. The photopraph has been taken on a clear day with blue sky and clear reflection in water. Human presence adds to the scale of the structure and the image follows the rules of architectural photography.

Articles in which this image appears

Virasat-e-Khalsa, Moshe Safdie, Anandpur Sahib

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Sanyam Bahga

• Support as nominator --Sanyambahga (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fails to meet lowest required resolution on the height... Is this a cropped picture? If so, could you upload the original version? Dusty777 18:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only required for one dimension to exceed 1000px. So while it's unusually small considering its genre, the image is strictly speaking okay for the resolution criterion. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this was shot on a Nikon D60 like the EXIF data suggests, there ought to be a 10 megapixel original somewhere.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply -- I have uploaded the maximum resolution version of the image. Please re-review the image. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- The resolution, as compared to the camera's abilities, indicates improper downsampling. I'd reconsider the original image or one with less drastic downsampling. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -- I have uploaded the maximum resolution version of the image. Please re-review the image. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full sized version only. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ALT1 as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Inclined to support as good composition, but the strong CA is bit disturbing. --ELEKHH^T 12:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Alt1 Still some CA left (left columns) and overall a bit soft, but it helps balancing our systemic bias for US/UK. --ELEKHH^T 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added ALT-1. I tried to reduce the CAs in Photoshop. O.J. (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems like a picture with high EV. I don't see any major technical flaws. Dusty777 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT-1 per Dusty Jkadavoor (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT-1. I like the composition and quality is sufficient. Not all architecture shots have to be photo stiches. O.J. (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Khalsa Heritage Memorial 176 Edit.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• With no prejudice as to addressing further concerns through D&R. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]