There was a short discussion about the lead image in Talk:Kobe Bryant#Infobox picture. This picture was also suggested, but some editor liked another photo for it being an "action shot"; though it's not in FP standards and low resolution. The fact that the image is used in 6 articles though adds to the EV even though it's not the current lead. In addition, there aren't many as good basketball images, especially not from 2005, and there are no current NBA players FPs at all (Buddy Hield's FP is from his time in the NCAA). This one is of one of the most iconic NBA players of all time (certainly top 10, I'd say top 5 all time), which makes it highly valuable. --Tomer T (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Support Alt 1 - I prefer the colors and crop of the source photograph (unnominated). Plus the highlights in the nominated original are blown, especially on the shoulder. I created a new derivative from the source photo in which the only change is adjusting the curves (to avoid blowing out the highlights). Kaldari (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also it looks like the original was skewed to make it look like Bryant is standing up straighter (rather than slightly hunched to the right as in the source photo and alt 1). Kaldari (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image is interesting, engaging, and makes one click through to see more, but it doesn't really describe the topic of the article it's in ("a type of photograph that uses long exposure times to capture the apparent motion of stars in the night sky due to Earth's rotation"; emphasis added). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a paragraph on star trail photos captured at ISS. The preceding paragraph (on mechanical vs. digital) is somewhat related too. Bammesk (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is taken almost verbatim from the photo description, and seems to only be there to accompany the photo. I wonder if there's discussion elsewhere of star trails taken from places other than the Earth's surface. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About "star trail" photo discussions, there are lots on this astronomer's photos (Don Pettit) on board ISS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 He seems to be a trailblazer (there aren't that many photographers in space). All sources call these "star trail" photos (or photography). I updated the article. Bammesk (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A bit overprocessed, IMO it has lost a bit of detail in the lightest walls (compare with original, or version 2013-07-17T00:00:30). Also, a little too much water at the top makes the composition a bit unbalanced. A few fixes, and I could support. --Janke | Talk19:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this image is just in a gallery, which does not show EV. A different photo is in the infobox. Although you could say this one has higher EV because it also shows surrounding statues and environment, so perhaps this one should go in the infobox. (t · c) buidhe21:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not a photography expert, so please bare with me. I'm unaware of the technical details surrounding this image since it was uploaded by Balliol College themselves. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Old photos can be worked on by specialists, removing noise, scratches etc. so that an old image can look better. Have a look at the hundreds of similar FPs. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was clearly being slow. It's understood now. Would it be okay to close this nomination as "not promoted" or do we have to wait for the normal period to elapse? Modussiccandi (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To me, it fails criterion #3. The picture is not compelling, not making the viewer want to know more. It is nothing special. enjoyer -- talk02:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WB problem? I don't see it. First of all, WB is very subjective, second, it depends on monitor setting/calibration, third, it depends on the lighting condition both during shooting and viewing. Can you please specify exactly what's wrong with the WB? --Janke | Talk12:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2021 at 04:08:47 (UTC)
Reason
This is possibly the best free-licensed cover art I've seen in Wikipedia. It has vibrant, eye-catching art style and depicts the characters in the game.
Oppose, until there is an explanation of the strange color area in the foreground - found none in the article or caption. The colors are from a roof structure on a nearby building. There's another building inbetween with a curved roof. Thus, this photo shows only a part of the tower building, another reason for my oppose. --Janke | Talk08:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2021 at 07:46:08 (UTC)
Reason
This is a high resolution (within the constraints of optical microscopy) micrograph of an important pathogen. The magnification of the original NEF image is around 1,000 times. On most PC screens it will be around 5,000 times, but much of this will be dead magnification. The image shows the hyphae (filaments) and the oval and elliptical chlamydospores stained blue-black. The pink blobs are vaginal epithelial cells and the dark granules are common artefacts of the Gram-stain. (Note: microscope lenses do not have F-numbers they have Numerical apertures, this one was NA 1.25 and oil immersion).
It's not a criterion, it's an invalid oppose rationale. We are an encyclopedia, we go by notability. We don't go by most readers. We are not a journal, magazine or newspaper. Bammesk (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion #7 says the file description should be "descriptive, informative and complete". The description on the file page should be more comprehensive (the details in this nomination can be added). It helps to specify the approximate width of the depiction, knowing the size is important. This is now the lead image in two articles. Criterion #5 suggests waiting 7 days, I think a renomination (in a few weeks) has a better chance. What are the small dots (concentric circles)? there are lots of them at full size (100% magnification). Bammesk (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image was added recently. Perhaps a renomination? I support if it's stable. Bammesk (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC) . . . . Support it looks stable. Bammesk (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flawed composition - the bottom of the mud volcano looks to be cut off. I also wonder if there's a way to give a proper sense of the scale of this thing? Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As one who has been there, I think this spiral ramp is a significant feature of the place and its touristic attractiveness (the Round Tower). Tomer T (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – According to article's lead, the tower "is most noted" for this feature, so I think the EV is there. It's well done but not fully sharp (looking at the metadata, it was probably shot handheld with a wide aperture). Bammesk (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This definitely has good EV (it's why I visited this tower!), but the left side of the photo seems cut off. A wider lens or stitching together a couple of photos might be able to address this. Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cmon. It is a part of the culture, and should be treated as such. Or who cares about all those flowers and churches? The "advertising" claim is also subjective. Will this nomination promote the British museum and its policy? Will this nomination benefit the local tourism board? Take it easy, please. --Andrei (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, but this model is literally in stores right now. I will support at a later time, once it's replaced with the next model. Bammesk (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Writing as a shoe nerd who posts photos of his shoes on Commons (chunky leather ones, rather than sneakers), we have astonishingly few good photos of shoes. This is a great photo with good EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
?Charlesjsharp, MER-C This are Sneakers, not latest ruuning shoe. They are made more or less on same calupe, with some minor changes/updates. So All-Star cant be FP, or Forrest Gump Nike Cortez because they will always stay same !? --Petar Milošević (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's "best" work entices you to learn more - IMO, this photo doesn't - and, in fact, neither do most photos of shoes or any other commercial products. A photo needs to be really exceptional to cross the bar and worthy to become a FP. But of course, opinions here are subjective, everyone is entitled to his/her own. --Janke | Talk08:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion #3 says: "best examples of a given subject", "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". A key word is "subject", not Wikipedia as a whole. For this subject (i.e. for this video game), IMO this photo does fulfill criterion 3. As you say, it's a subjective call. Bammesk (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the version used in the article is cropped to better fit in the infobox. To me that says we should feature the cropped version. (t · c) buidhe01:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you have just cropped it! I'm easy either way. This is a very regular issue with FP. There is a template which crops images for the infobox, but few use it. The problem with what you have done is that I do not want users thinking this is my work - from a photographic standpoint your crop is far too tight. I offer all my images on a open licence, but this does come with its downside, like here. I wish someone would develop a user-friendly crop tool for the infobox. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I am disappointed you have not responded. I have removed your cropped image and replaced the original using the crop tool. Please reconsider your vote as soon as possible. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll take the fifth, even though I feel the perspective is a bit strange - but maybe there was no way of shooting with a longer lens a bit further away? --Janke | Talk10:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind promoting an image whose article is a stub. On the contrary, I happened to create articles after pictures had been featured on Commons (example). This image is used on several articles, including house. I think that's a good thing if an image encourages people to develop its related articles because it's been promoted here. This one was featured on Commons. Thanks, TheFreeWorld, for the nomination. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And I love this picture. And would you like to support my "Berca Mud Volcanoes" nomination 07:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose This is a famous and widely reproduced photo composition, and the blah lighting does it no favours here. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bog standard NASA official portrait. This is useful for illustrating what he looked like, but doesn't really achieve much else due to the dull composition. There are lots more photos of Aldrin with better EV - pretty much any photo taken during the Apollo 11 mission, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you didn't mean it User:Buidhe, but replacing an image with a crop of your personal choice to sabotage an FP nomination is not good behaviour. You should simply oppose and state a reason - that is fine. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I am disappointed you have not responded. I have removed your cropped image and replaced the original using the crop tool. Please reconsider your vote as sson as possible. @Ambrust: This is another example of unhelpful behaviur. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
???? I'm not sabotaging anything. I'm trying to make sure that the image used in the infobox is an appropriate crop for the particular use it's in. For header and infobox images, the CSS image crop template is worse for readers than using a separate cropped copy because it shows up at the original crop in page previews (when you hover over a link). (t · c) buidhe11:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore @Buidhe: (or may not know) that people download free-licence images from Wikipedia articles for use elsewhere and with your aggressive cropping efforts they will download an inferior image. If you don't like the crop template, please ask for it to be sorted. It seems 100% OK to me. And you have sabotaged the democratic FP process. I am happy to seek 3rd party admin. opinion on your actions. Are you? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing wrong. There is, first of all, nothing in the FPC instructions that forbid replacing images during FPC nominations. Second, it would be inappropriate for such rules to exist because an internal content process cannot forbid normal, good-faith editing on articles. Third, you are disregarding WP:AGF through negative accusations of "sabotage" when my edits are not at all intended to cause harm to your nominations but instead were done to improve the articles. Any admin is going to tell you the same thing: article content always takes priority over internal assessment processes, as it should on all projects. (t · c) buidhe16:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Tomer T:, we do not need a tighter crop as the image is cropped using the crop template on En:Wiki. If @Buidhe: has unilaterally decided that the crop template is not fit for purpose (see above), here is not the place to impose his views. It works fine for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am contesting the non-promote close. The uncropped (nom) version was stable following its insertion in the article and prior to this nomination (no objection by article editors). And now after this nomination, there is consensus for it being FP, i.e. Wikipedia's best, for its use in the article (as infobox image). We go by consensus (not by one editor). I put the uncropped version back in the article. Pinging the closing editor @Armbrust: and participants in case they choose to comment: @MER-C, TheFreeWorld, Charlesjsharp, Modussiccandi, Buidhe, and Basile Morin:. Bammesk (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk just reverted use of the cropped version in the article claiming the non-cropped version has consensus. Well, it doesn't. No one in this discussion, besides me, weighed in on which version was better to use in the infobox. (t · c) buidhe02:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 3 examples where participants weighed in on alternate images: [3], [4], [5]. There are many such examples in the archives. Removing a nominated image from its article, and/or modifying it, midstream, is disruptive. Bammesk (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image should present the subject as much detail as possible. Cropping out extraneous areas that aren't the subject increases the amount of detail that can be shown to the average reader, which adds encyclopedic value, regardless of what some editors think about the artistic merit of certain crops. Applying these principles to improve the image used in the infobox is in no way "disruptive". (t · c) buidhe04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way to do it without disrupting the nom process. Look at the 3 examples, look at the time lines (the edit histories), look at who replaced the images in the articles, and when. There is a right way. Bammesk (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, our WP:PURPOSE as an encyclopedia is to create content that is useful for readers. Therefore, I focus on improving reader facing content, rather than prioritizing an internal process. If Wikipedia articles can be improved by changing crops, switching images, etc., that should not wait for FPC. This is not "sabotage" of anyone's nominations. (t · c) buidhe11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have created content that is less useful for readers who wish to download an image. Changing an image mid FP nomination is sabotage in my opinion as you nullify all previous votes. Do you think your vote is better than everyone else's? Just behave like everyone else and simply oppose the FP nomination please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A piece of cake? Where's that special EV that makes images FP worthy? I would prefer a photo set up like this [[6]] (but that example is not FP worthy due to low quality and messy background). --Janke | Talk12:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Janke. EV nonexistent. Such off-the-wall subjects would need extraordinary aesthetic quality to qualify for MP promotion. This one fails to whet my appetite. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brownies don't do it for me either, but alas I could see how the vote was going on that silly one. (And hey, that was six years ago!) – Sca (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly not a "typical" slice of cake, but on the other hand the plating looks pretty unappetizing if we're going for a super aesthetic fancy slice of cake. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image was uploaded and added to the only article it's currently used in by the uploader yesterday, so FP criterion 5 currently isn't met. More broadly, while the photo does have EV, this is really in articles on the pandemic in the UK rather than in rainbows in culture and I'd be surprised if better photos of this topic weren't available - the garbage bin spoils the composition, for instance. The Thank You NHS category at Commons includes some good options which could be used in place of the rather lacklustre images in the Thank You NHS article. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note this is not my own house! I took many photographs around the restricted area available at the time, and this was my favourite. ProfDEH (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Charles. Overcast days can produce emotive land- or cityscape pix, but this isn't one of them. Also, composition is rather jumbled. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2021 at 01:33:37 (UTC)
Reason
This short film has gotten a resurgence in recent years and I believe it meets the criteria for Featured Picture, with its high resolution and EV to its respective articles.
Comment This is a useful photo, but a less cluttered background would be much better, if possible. The subject of the photo doesn't stand out particularly strongly. 23:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs)
Oppose - Scale is a problem here. It looks enormous unless you zoom in, but judging by the little droplets thrown up it must be about the size of a children's paddling pool? The text in the article doesn't really make this any clearer. ProfDEH (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – well done photo, and informative article (it needs citations though). There are several of these at this location. The top shiny surface is 10 to 30 feet in diameter (per google earth). Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for original version – To my mind the inscription should not be removed. It adds interest, and even though the boards are easily cloned it's still an invention, not the original. ProfDEH (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either version, but it needs more restoration, there are lots of spots (visible at full size) that can be cleaned up. I prefer Alt 1 because that's the most widely published version. Bammesk (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the distortion is excessive. The uneven column heights and the tilted ceiling/roof are too obvious and distracting. Bammesk (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to shoot from further away (narrow street), hence the distortion, necessitated using an 18mm lens. Knowing that, the distortion doesn't bother me at all. --Janke | Talk06:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not totally representative of Chugach State Park, which contains glaciers but is mostly not glaciers. I'm not also sure it's the best representation of crevasse. Also, the encyclopedic value is limited because which glacier this is is not specified, and the coordinate data appears to be wrong (just an arbitrary point in the middle of Chugach State Park, not near topography that looks like this). Chugach State Park is about 2/3 the size of Rhode Island, for reference. Here's a map of the park that shows where the various glaciers are: [9]Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]