Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-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 30 Sep 2012 at 18:15:01 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Water pollution, Lake Maracaibo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original The image quality is there, but I dislike the composition. I would expect an image featuring water pollution to give slightly more context to the debris. Jujutacular (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added an alternative. Is that what you mean by more context? Tomer T (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is better, although it still doesn't seem quite there for me. I can't really put my finger on what would make it better though, so I abstain on the alt. Jujutacular (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality and much EV.Alborzagros (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose agree with Jujutacular that more context would add to the EV. Pine^✉ 05:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Jkadavoor (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt: it could provide more context that that, but that would be a fundamentally different picture: the two could co-exist. This one tells us quite a lot about the nature and volume of water pollution on Lake Maracaibo, which, given what it shows must be a central part of an article on the lake.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Alt better context, though more would be even better. Focus is slightly off. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The view feels too arbitrary in both. Would be improved with a wider angle of view or a larger panorama, catching more of the shoreline, a longer length of debris, and the bank, so that it's a composition instead of a snapshot. Julia\^talk 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2012 at 13:44:48 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, good quality image, has an encyclopedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Ferdinand Marcos, Harold Holt, History of the Philippines, Keith Holyoake, Liberal Party of Australia, Old Congress Building, Manila, Park Chung-hee, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

White House Photo Office/Frank Wolfe (Uploader: Shika ryouse shomei)

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^talk 13:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Oppose Bad framing, A few unnecessary people at blow-right of photo, unseemly background and resolution is disapproving. Alborzagros (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose good EV, but seems noisy in a way that suggests a low-quality digitization of the original photo. Pine^✉ 05:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: this looks to me like it was scanned from a print, not from the negative. Chick Bowen 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: I agree with some of the above, but I would factor in a lot more significantly the fact that this is historical photograph (given the people there, I think it might be the only meeting with this ensemble); historical images scanned from prints are far more acceptable than modern versions of the same. The setting is reasonable – OK, so there are people to the right - but I don't think they distract and it's still nice to have a photograph that sets the leaders in the context with the flags. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2012 at 04:30:56 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, resolution of a well known structure. Image has been stable in the article for a few months now

Articles in which this image appears

Taj Mahal, Agra, Tourism in India ...

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We already have a FP of the Taj Mahal, File:Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg. Maybe a delist and replace would be better. Spongie555 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go on with nomination. If this passes, we can delist the older one --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only it worked like that. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As one of the most photographed buildings in the world, this isn't as remarkable as it needs to be IMO. It looks nice and crisp at 100%, but it should do given how heavily downsampled this 9MP appears to be. The alignment and symmetry is very good, though I'd crop a little off the left to remove that bit of tree and balance it. The outer towers appear slightly distorted (e.g., the brickwork horizontals aren't horizontal) which may be a result of the wide-angle of view or perhaps they really are a little bit wonky. That's a minor point. However, the sky is boring and pale, the midday lighting far from flattering, and the water feature is horrible brown. Compare the best images online, which are taken in dusk or dawn light (quieter too), perhaps with atmospheric mist or with clouds adding interest to the sky, or at least a rich blue sky, and, most spectacularly, with a gloriously symmetrical reflection of the building in the still clean water. Colin°^Talk 19:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blieusong (below) suggests comparing what is on wiki rather than just elsewhere. Looking at Category:South side of the Taj Mahal:

• File:Agra0596b.jpg has lovely dusk lighting and reflection.
• File:Morning view of the Taj Mahal, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India.jpg has lovely morning light and reflection.
• File:Agra01.jpg has golden light and reflection.
• File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0009.JPG captures the 3-d convex and concave.
• File:Monsoon in india.jpg has a dramatic sky and lighting.
• File:Taj Mahal 2002.JPG has excellent symmetry reflected in the still water.
• File:Taj Mahal Front.JPG has a good but not perfect reflection.
• File:Taj Mahal of Shah Jahan.jpg has lovely lighting and reflection.
• File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India-23Feb2007.jpg captures it from another side, with reflection in the river.
• File:Taj Mahal reflection on Yamuna river, Agra.jpg shows the scope for artistic opportunities.

Many of those are much more atmospheric pictures with more interesting composition and take advantage of the water feature (rather than it looking like a health hazard). But they often don't stand close scrutiny at 100%. They aren't stitched downsized images from a professional DSLR. They show what any tourist can do with a compact camera. They have other flaws too, though many look great at screen size. So compare File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg for a photograph of just the building. That 37MP image is over 2x larger, is just as sharp, and shows much more detail (one can see the mesh of the door "windows", the people's faces, etc). The lighting much better too. There's no distortion of the towers. I think that is a far finer picture of the building itself. The above also shows the gardens but really doesn't do them justice, with the brown water. Colin°^Talk 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Every picture has its benefit over others (though some are questionable to me) but overall the current candidate is still what wiki has best in stock to me (as far as I have looked). I'm also not fan of the stitching + downsampling combo in the spirit, but who cares? The result is good, and that's what we review (we review more results than what hardware + process was used right, do we?). Last picture is nice, though without context, and less properly centered. Feel free to nominate... You are a bit overrating the distortion issue, which comes with every wide enough view, but frankly, it's not that big a deal!! A picture of the London metro station of yours has much more distortions... (But I like it a lot!) - Blieusong (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing the stitching + downsampling where there's no real loss of detail -- it does produce very nice results. I said the distortion was a minor issue: sometimes it is worth pointing these things out in case it can be fixed. The other picture managed to achieve a distortion-free result, but I've seen others too with the same problem. My main issue is that this is what many people regard as one of the wonders of the world, taken at what most scenic photographers regard as the worst time of the day, and rather than the water feature adding wonderfully to the scene, it repulses. I linked pictures above not simply to compare one image against another, but to show that a passing tourist with a compact camera can take a more beautiful picture. This isn't the sort of scene where you need to hike up a mountain and camp out in the snow to achieve. It isn't an obscure beetle but the subject of tens of millions of photographs (Google Image). For the article lead, I'd say File:Taj Mahal 2002.JPG, a picture taken 10 years ago and missing the outer towers, is a far more beautiful image, though it doesn't reward examination. We all have our own tastes. So let's see where others vote. Colin°^Talk 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Colin Mediran ^talk 02:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First it appears downsampled. But resolution is big enough for most uses I can think of. The numerous tourists are not so welcome to me either, but I guess this is how a very famous iconic touristy place will look most of the time. I believe to have spotted a tiny stitch error on the left bottom part of the building. But overall, it's detailed, nicely exposed, centered and (presumably) stitched. Since Colin compares this work with what can be found elsewhere, this may not be best material on the subject, but it seems to be among the best we can find on wiki. And to me, it's very attractive. Better that than a not so attractive depiction of a subject, even though it's best material we can found on it (cf. bug nom below). - Blieusong (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for talking sense unlike some reviewers here --Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose People are strolling in FP! Alborzagros (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope you have other reasons for ur oppose ;-) - Blieusong (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Former picture is better. The lighning is not so great and the angle not so centric.--Kürbis (✔) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The sky looks off with parts blue and others like they have smoke. Not happy about the minaret distortions either. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose due to the minaret distortions mentioned by Saffron Blaze. It's a pity because I appreciate the level of detail in this pic. Pine^✉ 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though I claim File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg is the best we have available. (Full disclosure: I helped make some edits, mainly to the color.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Jkadavoor (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 02:00:02 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, good image of Patton Oswalt.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Phi Kappa Tau members, List of SpongeBob SquarePants guest stars, Patton Oswalt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Gage (Gage Skidmore)

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^talk 02:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't like that much of his mouth is covered by the mic, and there is much chromatic noise. Tomer T (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose non-technical lighting. Alborzagros (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A good free image of a living person, but then ...? Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image only adds measurable EV to the subject's bio. Poor composition with the mic. Very noisy. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 09:14:17 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, nice framing and angle in terms of composition and EV, adding much value to the article. Fair quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Pyracantha angustifolia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

JLPC

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A branch of fruit at top-right is blur and unclear. Alborzagros (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose focus problems throughout the image. I'm sure that someone can get a better picture of this subject. Pine^✉ 04:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose poor image quality. High ISO wouldn't have been necessary at wider aperture. Focus is way off. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2012 at 20:15:06 (UTC)

Reason

Striking photo of a space shuttle straddling the stratosphere and mesosphere

Articles in which this image appears

Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Troposphere, Atmosphere of Earth, Space Shuttle Endeavour, STS-130

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

NASA/Crew of Expedition 22

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 20:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Don't see any major technical defects. EV is good. Dusty777 01:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran ^talk 02:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Although that's got much EV, I don't see enough quality in that. Alborzagros (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And add to my collection of rotating wallpapers on my desktop - Beautiful image, and can never be taken again... gazhiley 10:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For the sake of clarity and scientific accuracy, care should be taken in captions to avoid the impression that the Shuttle is actually located at the boundary of the stratosphere and mesosphere when the picture was taken, rather than simply being between the camera and the boundary when the photo was taken. (Endeavour would have been about 200 km above the stratosphere-mesosphere boundary, at approximately the same altitude as the ISS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the caption. Pine^✉ 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support image has tremendous EV. Two technical drawbacks that I notice are the bit of noise and the fact that the shuttle is blurred at full res. Now, this being a shot that will never be able to be taken again, that the noise is not that big of a problem, and that they are going thousands of miles an hour (a little motion blur is expected), I say it is good enough. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Endeavour silhouette STS-130.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 11:36:30 (UTC)

Reason

including Quality image lable, Technicla framing and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Catopsilia pomona

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jkadavoor

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I prefer the angle of File:Catopsilia_pomona.jpg because that shows more of this insect's front anatomy. Also, I think that this nomination should specify that the subject is a male since the female has some differences in appearance. Pine^✉ 04:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you mentioned has got 108 KB however It is well-angled. We can type sex of butterfly to keep it from risk of not promoting of Photo. in the other hand sex is not important and technical criticism. Alborzagros (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case I wasn't clear before, let me say that I am not suggesting that the other photo would be FP quality. I'm just saying that I like the angle better. Regarding the caption, yes that can easily be fixed. Pine^✉ 07:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as creator Yes; a straight AOV is better than an inclined one. The only reason for this AOV is the situation that didn't permit me to lower the camera any further. Specifying of sex is valuable too. I personally prefer the female picture which more in my taste of capture. BTW, this butterfly has an interesting behavior to perch inclined to expose one side at a time to the sunlight. Later it turn around to expose the other side. There are some other butterflies who bask with closed wings but I didn't see any other butterfly perch inclined (other than dead leaf butterflies but that is not for basking). -- Jkadavoor (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I'm with Pine here, the other angle shows the butterfly much better. This is a good picture, but I don't think it quite up to FP standards, Even then, I won't oppose it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 11:55:49 (UTC)

Reason

Including High Quality image lable, Featured picture in commons, Technical framing, suitable background.

Articles in which this image appears

Chinese pole

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Ludo29

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose While this photo has good technical quality, it would have more EV if we could see the top and bottom of the pole to give more context. Pine^✉ 04:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To focus two cubans art acrobatic performance, we need to get the camera closer. end and top of Chinese pole is not enough important. If User:Pine'S subjugation was significant the picture would be out of artists conduct. Alborzagros (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by Pine's subjugation? And what is artists conduct? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bash anyone's English when a little thinking should make it obvious. :) He means if Pine's opinion were implemented the image would be less focused on the artists and what they are doing. More pole (which can be up to nine metres high) equals fewer pixels on the actual subject. Julia\^talk 19:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia, I'm the last person that would bash someone for how they speak a foreign language. Way to assume bad faith. Having learned several languages myself, I have often wished someone asked me for clarification on a statement of mine instead of guessing what I meant, as oftentimes they will guess incorrectly. Simply treating others as I wish to be treated.

If your interpretation of his comment is correct, then I have to agree that there will be less pixels to admire their huge muscles, but there will be better context as to how high up the ground these guys are performing. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the :)? I wasn't assuming bad faith, I just think if you wanted clarification it could have been done relatively privately on his talk page instead of bringing it to everyone's attention here, which seemed to give it unnecessary weight and negativity. Julia\^talk 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had interpreted the smiley to be referring to the obvious. Oh well. Not that it is easy to convey emotion over text. I considered asking in his talk page, but then again, someone else here might have wanted the answers to the same questions and would have benefited from reading them. In any case, it was not my intention to give it negativity. As I said earlier, I wanted a clarification, and I asked in what was, to me, a civil manner. My apologies for having assumed bad faith on your comments. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Slightly noisy, but not bad considering the environment I'm sure this was taken in. Jujutacular (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose for now. EV is OK, the article is not super long. Composition is sub par. I agree with Pine, more context would really help. Image is noisy, as Jkadavoor Jujutacular points out. If it was only one of those flaws I would likely support. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry Jkadavoor. Thank you for correcting that!--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As Jujutacular says, the likely environment makes this actually a decent capture and would be hard to improve. I don't see the need for more context necessarily, as the focus is the stunts that are performed on the pole, not how high the pole is. Julia\^talk 19:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Leosvel et Diosmani - 4.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 19:15:04 (UTC)

Reason

Amazing and nearly irreplaceable composition, a self-portrait of an astronaut with the sun behind him, and the reflection of the ISS Space Station, the Earth and fellow astronaut Sunita Williams in the reflection in the visor of his helmet. It meets all criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Akihiko Hoshide, io9, Huffington Post, Daily Mail, Business Insider, etc.

FP category for this image

Space

Creator

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency astronaut Aki Hoshide

• Support as nominator --▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/oppose: I'm afraid for FP on Wikipedia a given image has to contribute to existing articles, this is a strict requirement. However you should consider Featured Picture on Commons, where this is not a requirement – however I'm not involved ibn that process so couldn't tell you if this picture would make it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, image added to Akihiko Hoshide, subject of this self-portrait. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well normally 7 days would be the suggested time but sibnce this is a fait accompli that can be worked around. However the way the image contributes to the article is non-standard so I'll sleep on it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, makes sense. I would also say that the photo itself is an unusual case, in that it has gained a small amount of notability on its own; or rather it has directly added to the mainstream English-language notability around Akihiko Hoshide. This photo has garnered similar attention for Sunita Williams, although she has already had significant English-language press coverage, so the photo is less significant to her overall notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time. The EV seems minimal. An excellent candidate for Commons, not so useful here. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose When we say "articles in which this image appears" we mean English Wikipedia articles. This appears only in Akihiko Hoshide where the EV is pretty low. I agree that this would have a better chance on Commons. Pine^✉ 04:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to low EV. The image is only in the Akihiko Hoshide article. In no good sense could we have an FP of a person in which their face is not visible. This could be any other astronaut and it would look the same. If we ever have an article about spacesuit sun-visors or a section about them in the spacesuit article, this could make a good FP there. It will however, likely make a great Commons FP. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2012 at 20:07:42 (UTC)

Reason

Clear and didactic ultrasound representation of a fetus affected by the desease

Articles in which this image appears

Spina bifida

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

the creator of the image, where possible using the format Wolfgang Moroder

• Support as nominator --Moroderen (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm confused on a couple of levels here. Firstly the nominator self-identifies as the same individual as the creating account, whih was blocked as a sock of a disruptive sockmaster - however that sort of thing isn't something I could do, so it might be that it poses no problem on this gorund. Secondly I am intrigued as to how the creator/nominator has the copyright of the appropriate file. Is it a real scan (it won't play on my machine)? If so (or indeed not) could this be clarified? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer Thank you for your comment. You are right, I did a mistake using my universal account name on WP (moroder), which has been banned on the English WP as a sockpuppet, I have nothing to do with. Therefore my correct account I use on the English WP is Moroderen. I'm not sure I understand you correctly in regard of the second point. The videoclip was generated on my ultrasound machine (GE E8) where I scanned the patient and made the diagnosis of spina bifida (see also the scan of the fetal head). I exported the clip as a avi file and converted in the theora.ogv format by "Miro video converter". Does this answer your question? Best regards --Moroderen (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, yes. But I'm still unclear, if you are an employee, over whether you actually own the copyright in this case. The work is presumably something you did as part of your job, which can be enough to make the copyright corporate. Has this ever been discussed before? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an employee, I am self employed and own 100% of the ultrasound machine. I do not believe the patient has some copyright on the image, which does not bear her name, but she gave me a verbal consent for publication --Moroderen (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner would depend on the jurisdiction this ultrasound was done. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the article this video is in is about spina bifida and not about ways of detecting spina bifida. So EV is small if any. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does this mean that this is not a spina bifida? Or that fetal spina bifida does not count?--Moroderen (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were asking me, so I corrected the indentation. I can't see the spina bifida in the utrasound, but then again, I don't know what to look for. In no way do I think fetal cases do not count. Regardless, I am changing my vote, as I see a different way to approach this now. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my vote to Weak Support, as there is a section in the article about detecting the condition while in the womb, to which this file adds a lot of EV. I would support fully if the untrained eye (me) could easily spot spina bifida in the ultrasound. As it is, I can't really tell the difference from any other ultrasound. But maybe that is just me. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't speak for untrained eyes, but it's plainly visible in the thumbnail. The lighter parts in the centre is the body of the fetus, which is facing the bottom of the picture. The line of white spots is the spine, and the anomaly is the lump in the back circled in red. --101.109.210.60 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that is it! OK, well, I see it now. Image definitely needs a good caption wherever it is to explain where is what. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

info I added some text on the capture and imagenotes to the still image shown with 'Other versions' --Moroderen (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 06:01:03 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev as lead image, Good quality and detail

Articles in which this image appears

Harry Steinfeldt

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Paul Thompson

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for now. Image is not high quality nor does it show great detail. It is noisy and blurred. But, it being a historical image, I lean to think it may be good enough. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw The picture isnt that good after looking it again. Also the attempt to fix it made it worse. Spongie555 (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2012 at 03:24:48 (UTC)

Reason

Okay, this is one of those slightly left-field noms that some may like and some may not. As the article notes, sign painting as a craft has almost disappeared, with most signs now being done via computer generated machinery. I thought I was lucky not just to catch a traditional hand-painted sign in the process of being created, showing how they build up the sign, painting on the undercoat, outline, background, etc, but to also actually capture the sign-painters at work, with their paint buckets and equipment, safety gear, and so on. Not only was this article unillustrated, I had to create a new category for this on Commons. Good technicals, nice colours, and high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Sign painting

FP category for this image

Not really sure; maybe it's one of those oddball Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other ones. Could be squeezed into Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, though it's not really about the artwork.

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: File has been kept. I've taken liberty to reset the timer. --115.67.65.39 (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I did not last time because of the discussion above. But I really like this. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality, novel idea, nice execution. Jujutacular (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. No complaints. Dusty777 16:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The call on the deletion nomination was the right one; if there are no practical grounds for a copyright claim, there's no need to invent a theoretical case for one. Chick Bowen 15:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you bring it up, I'll chime in. It seems to me that the closure was made because the discussion had gone stale, not because any legally sound consensus had been reached. The only promising suggestion (that de minimis and threshold of originality might work in concert) was never reviewed by counsel, and no attempt was made to contact any of the potential copyright holders to see if by granting permission for the reproduction, they might be willing to turn the whole thing into a non-issue (note that obtaining permission doesn't automatically imply that we needed it, simply that we were being courteous). At this stage, I don't think we've effectively clarified anything. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never known Fastily to close a discussion simply because it had "gone stale"; he has often closed discussions as delete when there was no call for deletion other than the nominator (as is often necessary at Commons, where there is little participation). Also, David Iliff contacted the sign painter months ago and got no response, probably because most sign painters would be unlikely to concern themselves with copyright and wouldn't have a clear idea of whether they own it and are extending a license to the client or the client owns it. Finally, I think the conclusion was clear: this is a partial, fragmentary rendering of the design, and thus it's impossible to imagine a serious copyright claim. Anyway, I think we've had quite enough of this question. You're right--I brought it up, and now regret doing so. Chick Bowen 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality photo with strong EV. In relation to the above, the default on Commons image deletion discussions where copyright is an issue seems to be to delete the image, so if it was kept it can be assumed to be judged to have been OK, especially given the experience of the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Excellent EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sign Painting, LA, CA, jjron 22.03.2012.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2012 at 08:31:41 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Chesme Church

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Support edit 1. Tomer T (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Kürbis (✔) 19:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 too. Jkadavoor (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Pine^✉ 07:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is it just me, or was the perspective correction overdone and the top of the building is a tad bit wider than the bottom? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing no reply, and agreeing with King of Hearts, I Oppose this nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Spongie555 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit - Spongie555 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks oversaturated to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit1. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Looks oversaturated and also too dark in my opinion. Jujutacular (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per King of Hearts and Jujutacular. Too dark in the sky and in the clouds. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded Seems a bit harsh to oppose when a simple edit can fix the problem --Muhammad(talk) 17:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is quite standard to do that at FPC, since in general an image, once nominated, is never reuploaded at the same filename. This way, a user can oppose the original and support the edit to show preference for the edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support edit 1 Thanks Muhammad. Jujutacular (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Muhammad, I like your version indeed - would it be OK when I overwrite the previous image by this version? In general, I don't like to have various edits of the same file as separate files, but I'm not familiar with the FPC procedure here. - A.Savin (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually have separate files for different edits as this makes it easier to track who supports what. At the end of the nomination, if you still want to overwrite it, discuss with the closer --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Spb 06-2012 Chesme Church.jpg --Julia\^talk 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I replaced the original file with Muhammad's edit, as per the creator's request. Julia\^talk 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 08:10:13 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality official portrait of the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia mission STS-107. On February 1, 2003, Columbia disintegrated during atmospheric reentry and all of the crew died in the accident. While the photo isn't especially striking, it has high historic and encyclopedic value. The photo was previously nominated for Featured Picture in 2006.

Articles in which this image appears

STS-107, Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 08:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, unless someone can make a case against the technicals. From where I'm sitting the only possible opposition is, as in 2006, that it doesn't have "impact". But it doesn't need to. The EV is huge. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'll be honest, I'd like this to be an FP, but I don't think it qualifies. The above mentioned nominations set a precedent, though it is not for the reasons established in those noms that I oppose this one. Let me explain: I think it is safe to say this image adds little to the accident page, as it is not about the accident. Therefore, I think this image should be held to the same standards as all other crew photos when it comes crew photos in articles about the missions. In the few other shuttle mission articles I checked, the crew photos are not featured pictures. Now, if there was an article about the crew of STS-107, this would be a no-brainier support, as the image would illustrate the scope of the article and would not be able to be retaken as they are all dead. But the article is about the mission, not the crew. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that the crew, all personally involved, of an accident contributes to an article about the accident? I heartily disagree. If there was a photograph of the Busby Babes then that would contribute to the article on the crash by showing those who died and survived, just like this one. I also question whether FPC really applies a question of precedent at all. We have plenty of renominations that pass the second time, we shouldn't feel bound per se. You might agree with the original objection, you might not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. If the crew were to blame for the accident, then that would be one thing. But they were not. So how much does the image of the crew add to the article of the accident? Some, yes. It is important to know the people that died in the accident. But does it illustrate the accident? That is what I meant, that it adds little in the FP realm. If the image was that of a dead crewmember after the accident, then it would have a enough EV for FP. But this image would be the same one had there been no accident. Hence, my comment that this image should be treated the same as all other spaceship crew photos.

I just checked, neither the Apollo 13 crew picture nor the Apollo 1 crew picture are featured. We already mentioned the Challenger crew photo not being FP. No, I don't think a precedent is binding. Regardless, my comments indicated that I didn't oppose this nom due to the previous noms.

Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from a little better. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you here. There is an article on STS-107 and the composition of the crew is relevant to a shuttle flight. Each crew trains for the specific missions that happened during a specific flight. A photo of good quality for each mission's crew would have its place among FPs if we can get a photo that has sufficient size and technical quality, and I believe that this photo passes those tests for STS-107. Also, wouldn't you say that the identities of the deceased individuals are relevant for showing the consequences of the accident? Pine^✉ 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most NASA missions will have a good crew shot. Can they all be FPs? Sure. You are correct in that the crew is specific to each mission. The crew is only part of the mission, just as the orbiter is only part of it. The mission itself are all the experiments and work that was done while in orbit by the crew in the shuttle. That is what I think would wholly illustrate the mission and if it is a good image should be FP. I oppose this nom on the basis that it adds to the article because the mission failed. If we decide it is OK for all crew shots (if good) to be FPs, I will support it in that regard. Now, I do not disagree with you that identifying the deceased is important. Their mere picture doesn't fully illustrate the consequences of the accident however. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because Apollo 13 nor Apollo 1 have their crew picture as featured, doesn't mean they can't be. I checked also, and neither pictures were ever nominated, so no one knows if they would be promoted or not. That is a poor reason for an Oppose (not to disregard your other reasons.) Dusty777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't at all a reason for my oppose. Notice how I wrote that after my main explanation of my vote. My point was that this image should be treated as any other crew photo. If we decide to start nominating crew photos (of which there are a lot), I'm OK with that. I just don't think this one deserves to be FP solely on the basis that the crew died. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Just so you understand where I'm coming from in terms of how well an image adds EV, I think the following files significantly add EV to the accident article: File:Space mirror sts107.jpg, File:STS-107 Columbia entry imaged from ground.jpg, File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg, and File:Impact-test.jpg. That is not to say they would meet the quality criteria for FP. In terms of EV: the first are the names of the astronauts in the NASA mirror, the second shows how the shuttle started to disintegrate, the third shows the aftermath of the accident, and the fourth shows how big a hole was in the orbiter. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Historically significant, not an ordinary STS crew photo and perhaps the best among other STS 107 photos. This is good also (shows their boots in particular, which are out on the nominated photo), but is unfortunately smaller. Brandmeister^talk 21:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no problems here. The EV is excellent in STS-107 (after all, the crew was STS-107.) Dusty777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The crew is not the most featured part of the mission. They are the most important part of the disaster; but the file File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg has more "emotional EV" there than just a group snap. Further it shows the enormous people involved in that mission and their feelings. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Has very high EV in the STS-107 article. But what separates it from other crew photos is its EV (albeit smaller) in the disaster article. Added up, I feel the EV is sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Dusty777. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Crew of STS-107, official photo.jpg --Julia\^talk 23:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 16:54:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality image of a traditional bullock-cart (notice the disk wheels). The different parts of the yoke are clearly visible.

Articles in which this image appears

Bullock cart, Yoke

Land vehicles

Creator

Yann

• Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not enough EV. The main subject of the image are the oxen, not the cart, as you hardly see any of it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope is Bullock cart, not cart, that's why it shows a pair of bulls. Yann (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wingtipvortex. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Wingtipvortex Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 08:51:48 (UTC)

Reason

I found it interesting because it is a bit funny and I think readers might also be interested with the image. Also, a good shot of the scene.

Articles in which this image appears

Mr. Bean

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Nathan Wong

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose low EV, background is blurry, his face almost shadowy. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Funny scene yes, but a picture of the ACTUAL filming would have better EV, and as Kürbis said, background is blurred. Great snapshot, worth being in the article, but not what I would consider to be good enough for a Featured Picture. gazhiley 10:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I would like to withdraw my nomination. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 11:57:46 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, has EV, has high resolution. Good representation image of a young galaxy.

Articles in which this image appears

Galaxy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

ESO/L. Calçada

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 11:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV seems weak. Pine^✉ 19:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine. Also, why have an artist's impression when we have plenty of pictures? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 11:50:39 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, has high resolution, has EV, also a good image of the Galactic Center.

Articles in which this image appears

Galactic Center

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

2MASS/G. Kopan, R. Hurt

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 11:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question we already have Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Milky Way galaxy which seems to have better focus on the galactic core. How is the image that you're nominating contributing to the article in a way that the current FP doesn't? Pine^✉ 19:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, my nomination contributed well because it has more EV than the current FP. Because the image I am nominating is the lead image on the article Galactic Center where both of the image appeared in while the current FP is just used in the Gallery section. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that this is the lead image and the other FP is in the gallery, but it seems to me that you could just swap the current FP to be the lead. I don't see how this particular photo contributes a huge amount of EV. Pine^✉ 21:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 23:25:21 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp image, showcasing the details of this nice species

Articles in which this image appears

Flame angelfish

FP category for this image

Animals/Fish

Creator

Andreas März

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the fish looks unbelievably bright in this photo but looking at other Internet pics it looks like this is realistic. Pine^✉ 19:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good image, good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Red channel is completely blown on large areas of the fish. Julia\^talk 15:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Julia. The red is rather prominent. Dusty777 16:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I've looked at other pictures of this fish on the internet and they all show this fish to be an amazingly bright orange. I don't think this photograph is unrealistic. Pine^✉ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what Dusty meant, but my oppose is based on a technical shortcoming of the photograph. I agree that the colour is probably realistic, but the execution here is poor because the red channel is blown. The result is a severe loss of detail, such that the scales, which should be crisply visible, are smudged and fuzzy or in some areas even absent. There are several ways you can check for this technical aspect yourself in an image editing program, but the histogram is the easiest starting point. Julia\^talk 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the image could show the scales in more detail like the photo at http://showyourfishes.com/flame_angelfish/ but I'm not sure the problems are bad enough here that I'd want to oppose. Pine^✉ 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Julia Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 07:28:11 (UTC)

Reason

The work has good EV - as the primary image of the page for Officer (armed forces) it depicts a milestone ceremony for officers capturing the symbolic 'hat toss'. The aesthetic appeal is evident. The photo is well sourced. While the resolution of the height scrapes under the 1500 pixel minimum guideline, an exception could be made based on the technicality of its framing and uniqueness.

Articles in which this image appears

Officer (armed forces)

FP category for this image

I'm tentatively suggesting Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA_History, although there may be a better one.

Creator

Mate 1st Class Kevin H. Tierney

• Support as nominator --Noozman (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I feel very uneasy about EV to "Officer (armed forces)", which documents officers in all sorts of military service, around the world, " symbolic 'hat toss'" is not symbolic in most of these places. Are there not more specific pages? Is this image inferior to those already used there, or merely unused? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think this adds a huge amount of EV to this article in its current context. The photo surely is not of a typical military officer who is performing typical duties or posing for an official portrait. The photo might do better in the article graduation if you'd like to expand it to include military graduations. You might also find a spot for it somewhere in the United States Naval Academy article. Pine^✉ 09:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine. As two side notes, A) it should not be the lead image in Officer (armed forces) per both Pine and Grandiose, and B) That file needs a shorter name... --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pine Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 17:28:00 (UTC)

Reason

Exceptional picture of Indian vulture in the nest. Very difficult to take: this bird nests at the top of high buildings, far out of reach from humans. The species is highly endangered following use of deadly chemical by veterinary doctors.

Articles in which this image appears

Indian Vulture, Madhya Pradesh

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

Yann

• Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A nice picture. There would definitely be EV if it was the lead image. It needs to be in the article for 7 days. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only replaced the existing image, taken at the same place and the same moment, but which was not as good as this one. This is discribed as OK in the guidelines. Yann (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to be Neutral on the alt while I'll continue to Oppose the original nom. The alt is a decent image, which could be sharper, though the colors are much better than the original. I agree with others that EV is a bit low unless there is a section about nesting. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This would potentially have excellent EV to show nesting habits in a longer article. I do find the building in the background a little distracting, though. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Nice image but I agree with J Milburn that this would have a stronger claim to EV if there was a section in the article about nesting. Pine^✉ 21:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm adding an edit as it seemed better contrast was possible in this image. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 Samsara (FA • FP) 08:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose after some thought. The image is not well used, and the background is a little distracting. The former point is the more important one. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article says "The species breeds mainly on cliffs, but is known to use trees to nest in Rajasthan"; but here it is on the sunshade of an ancient temple. So I think editing the text of the article and the image caption will improve the EV. It will be nice if Samsara or somebody else remove the white building on the background in Edit 1. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 09:41:09 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality large image, lead image in an article, used in multiple pages

Articles in which this image appears

LH 95, Star formation, Large Magellanic Cloud, List of nearest galaxies. An alternate version was used on Astronomy, Intergalactic travel, and Space colonization which I replaced with this larger version. (As of October 6, I am discussing which version to use for Star on the article's talk page). I also used this image to replace a smaller image that was in Template:Star formation.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

"NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration"

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not super high quality at full res, but that is fairly common in star photos. EV is decent. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just replaced an alternate version of this image with this version in four articles and replaced a different smaller image with this version on a template. I have linked the new articles and the template in the above list. Pine^✉ 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit EV is very good now. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it is very majestic depiction of creation. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:LH 95.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2012 at 08:47:56 (UTC)

Reason

A self portrait of the notable Norwegian-Danish painter Peder Severin Krøyer. High quality, great resolution and details.

Articles in which this image appears

Peder Severin Krøyer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Peder Severin Krøyer

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears there are some doubts as to the authenticity of this painting (in Danish). Its provenance is a little muddy and it is very close to the 1888 Uffizi self-portrait which has long been thought to be the only self-portrait by Krøyer from that year. The director of the Skagens museum was apparently unable to confirm its veracity between its listing in the Dorotheum catalogue and its sale in October 2011. If it is a forgery, it is a good one, but while there is doubt there are alternative self portraits to use. Yomangani^talk 12:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally whether a painting is a fake officially comes down to its inclusion (or not) in a catalogue raisonné, and given the emphasis on verifiability and not truth if it's in its in and if its out its out and it would therefore be very important to know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not. It was unknown until it materialised from a private collection in 2011. (Thankfully we've dispensed with the terrible "verifiability not truth" now anyway) Yomangani^talk 11:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 7[reply]

• So we have a choice whether to accept a lower standard of proof than the experts. However, we must still be sufficient sure about its licencing - if we doubt the authorship more than negligibly, that means that it may still be in copyright. Speaking of which the file doesn't have a valid US copyright tag, e.g. PD-100.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Copyright and authenticity are very closely related questions. If it is a forgery, the forger obviously owns the copyright, but will probably be unable to make any claims on it without risking legal trouble himself, making it a de facto free image. If it is an authentic Krøyer, it only has a valid US copyright tag (don't let the template text fool you, the US term is life + 70 years since it was first published in 2011), but is not free enough for commons since it is protected by the 25 years publication rights in the European Union. The only completely safe thing to do licensing-wise is to revert to the grayscale version, which is taken from a 1912 book and completely in the clear, and then revision-delete the colour version. They are different paintings anyway, even though they look almost identical, so maybe they should be uploaded as different files even if this version is kept around. 90.184.205.91 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 06:28:06 (UTC)

Reason

Awarded on Commons, has good EV, used in some Wiki

Articles in which this image appears

Butternut squash, Cucurbita moschata, Winter squash, List of gourds and squashes

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is currently under discussion at below at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cucurbita moschata so I suggest a speedy close of this duplicate nom. Pine^✉ 07:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Speedy Close before this wastes anyone's time. gazhiley 07:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Speedy Close -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Speedy Close --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Already nominated. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 04:56:56 (UTC)

Reason

Quality image, has EV, has a free license, is of high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Water well

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

commons:User:Neogeolegend

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a leather bucket. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As what said in the filename and the description of the image from the creator, the bucket was wooden, that's all I know. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please view the image at 1:1; you can see the folds and stitches. Why do you edit the page Water well without contacting the creator of the file? It seems the picture was taken at UAE where people use leather bags as water containers on their horses and camels too. From [1]: "The camel had once provided most of life's necessities for desert nomads: It was a form of transportation, of course, a source of meat and milk, and provided hair to be woven into cloth for tents and storage bags. Its leather was made into sandals, buckets and watering-troughs and its sinews into bowstrings." Jkadavoor (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First off, as stated above, it is a leather bucket. Not that it matters for FP purposes. The EV is low, as the image is only in the article Water well, and I don't think a water bucket illustrates a well fairly well. Lastly, either the focus is off or there is some motion blur, but the bucket is not sharp. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So corrected it in the article and file description. Jkadavoor (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Low ev. The image barely shows just one part of the top of the well (not even the entire aboveground portion). Spencer^T♦C 04:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 21:08:05 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, newly created article meets EV requirements

Articles in which this image appears

Humble Oil Building, National Register of Historic Places listings in downtown Houston, Texas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

User:Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well captured: good angle and lighting. --ELEKHH^T 13:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; looks strong, an excellent example of what pictures of this sort should be. J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 04:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The ground gives me a headache - not sure if it's OOF, or from processing. 141.14.245.242 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The focus was placed on the center of the building. The aperture probably could have been narrowed a bit (f/8 with 1/250 shutter speed), but I don't feel that it detracts greatly. Jujutacular (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I agree with the IP about lower part of the image. That could use improvement. Otherwise this is good. Pine^✉ 23:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I notice Jujutacular's comments on the focus placement. The ground being out of focus is not a big deal to me. I would like the entire building to be in focus, but it is not at neither the top nor the bottom. Jujutacular, or someone else, how difficult would it be to shoot it again, with a tripod, at say f/15+ for wider DOF? I would also like a shot where the sun is on the other side and we don't get the shadow cutting across the lower part of the building. If these are impossible requests, I will weakly support. Otherwise I feel we should wait for a picture without these concerns. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not impossible, but it may be some time before it happens. I need to line up: a clear day, Sunday (only day I can get to this spot), my schedule free, not get accosted by security. Even if this does pass, I see that there is some hesitancy on the part of the comments here, so I may go back and try to get a better image when possible. Thank you for the recommendations. Jujutacular (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not disturbed by that shadow at all, it naturally emphasises the geometry of the building. --ELEKHH^T 20:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I don't think the ground in the foreground is out of focus, at least not much. At f/8 and with such a distance, it should be in the same focal plane as the building, I would imagine. I suspect that the reason why it looks blurry is that it's been warped more significantly by the perspective correction, so all the detail is being stretched wider. As a result, you can see significantly more chromatic abberation in the bottom of the frame (good example is the white car), but it seems to be present throughout the image, and while stopping down can help minimise this, f/8 is probably appropriate for reasons of sharpness. Juju, if you have access to Adobe Lighroom or Photoshop, you can correct chromatic abberation there. Alternatively, use a superior lens if available. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Humble Tower.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 23:24:44 (UTC)

Reason

This is the only photograph in the article Corona Australis and the EV is good. I have expanded the caption in the article.

Articles in which this image appears

Corona Australis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

European Southern Observatory

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 23:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom. Stunning. Dusty777 02:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:R Coronae Australis region.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2012 at 09:23:04 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Salvia pratensis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Needs exposure push/shadow lift - currently underexposed on the parts that we're interested in. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the other image in the article provides more EV although it's too small to meet the current FP criteria. Pine^✉ 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2012 at 05:04:10 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, Well-framing, Much EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Chlorophyllum molybdites

FP category for this image

Creator

Ianaré Sévi

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs a size reference. A statement on the image page that says what the size of this specimen was would be sufficient. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info referring to size. Alborzagros (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This appears only in a gallery, and would not be suitable to replace the lead image. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with J Milburn. Pine^✉ 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2012 at 12:35:53 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, has EV, is of high resolution, good image of the painting of Sandro Botticelli, Primavera.

Articles in which this image appears

Aby Warburg, Italian Renaissance painting, Italian art, List of works by Sandro Botticelli, Primavera (painting), Sandro Botticelli

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Sandro Botticelli c. 1482 (Apokarteron)

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sadly. This photograph is far too dark; the background should be green, not black, and the knots and contours in the bark of the trees are quite visible, as are all the individual leaves (not just the ones against the sky as here). It should be possible to photograph the painting so that these details are visible. Also, when you say high resolution, are you fully taking into account that this painting is over 10 feet wide? Chick Bowen 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - the (forest green) background is too dark, but, if that could be rectified, it would be excellent. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chick Bowen. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 15:16:05 (UTC)

Reason

Good lighting and angle, revealing some interior as well.

Articles in which this image appears

Parthenon

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Andrew Baldwin

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent clarity, and unusual for an FP to be at night (in my experience) so really stands out nicely... The darkness around it seems to enhance the quality of the stonework IMO... gazhiley 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per gazhiley. Excellent! Dusty777 02:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose Huh? Why? The scaffolding. I assume it was there on a temporary basis, and it not part of the building. It is a great photo, but should not be hard to retake it once the building is as it is supposed to be. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the building is probably not going to be ever again as it was "supposed to be". Scaffolding is normal part of its present appearance. Just check out the image galleries. --ELEKHH^T 23:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not, I never said that. I said image should be how it is now. Is the scaffolding part of its present appearance? If it is, then I'll reconsider. But I need to see something more than pictures to tell me it is permanent. Scaffoldings serve no permanent purpose. If the building is falling down, then supports are added. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Wingtipvortex. This photo was taken in 2010. According to what I'm reading from news sources, the scaffolding should be long gone. --Pine^✉ 00:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the scaffolding detracts from the EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wingtipvortex. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - EV may be restored if there is discussion of the renovations(?) in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be. Image is not in this section however. Even then, the scaffolding is not prominent in this image. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Kürbis (✔) 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose No way this is going to pass now. Dusty777 22:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It still has the scaffholding as of 3 days ago. I was there when I was 5 years old and it was covered in scaffolding, it still is today, and I'm sure it will be still when we're all old retirees. Benjamint 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to still be there... I see no problem with the EV now. Dusty777 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing scaffolding in the photo that's in that article. Please link to the photo that shows the scaffolding. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most recent I found. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2012 at 13:08:34 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Cucurbita moschata, Butternut squash, Winter squash, List of gourds and squashes

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits

Creator

George Chernilevsky

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support EV is good. Image is a tad bit soft for my taste, and the colors are a bit dull. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the grass and leaves the butternuts are laying in demonstrative of the environment they are commonly grown in? Also, is that flower part of the squash plant? None of the articles address flowering. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pumpkin article address flowering. Need to add the picture there too? Jkadavoor (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you don't need to. There's already a picture of the flower attached to a vine. This flower doesn't look like it's attached to anything. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per me and Muhammad. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems like an odd setting to photograph the fruit in. --Muhammad(talk) 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Much of EV. Alborzagros (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The setting is actually quite appropriate here because the grass provides a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But if it's not the natural environment of butternuts, then it's deceptive in other ways. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We can easily understand that these are harvested specimens; so I don't think it's deceptive in any ways. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can understand but I'm sure some will think these just pop out of the ground given that the flower also seems to come out of the earth --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Including the "cut" specimen? So this grows/pops out from a studio floor? Some criticisms are beyond my limits. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think the setting is deceptive. I wouldn't mind a neutral bg --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Muhammad - the setting of sitting on the ground is deceptive... gazhiley 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Muhammad Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think the problems mentioned above could be addressed by different placement in the articles or different captioning. Pine^✉ 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Weak support --Pine^✉ 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: A butternut in it's natural environment would be better. It is tasty, though. :) Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2012 at 04:56:26 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, Good Framing, well-shade background and full of EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Hercules beetle

FP category for this image

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but the sex should be specified. And I think the female also worth to feature. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sex (male ♂) to text.Alborzagros (talk)

• Support per nom. Size reference makes spikebrennan happy. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The size of insect is written through caption. Alborzagros (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. This parrot beetle appears to be dead. Kaldari (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be dead or not to be. this not question.Alborzagros (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a museum specimen. I don't think they can survive for centuries without being dead. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that the photos used to illustrate our animal articles be photos of live animals if possible. Kaldari (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a good point. But focus stacked photos have more details and so more identification information than in a in vivo photo. Focus stacking for a restless subject is very difficult. Jkadavoor (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This photo is already featured in Commons. Alborzagros (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I confirm that despite his good looks he is dead. There is no concurecne between images of live insects and mounted specimen. The two are complementary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great quality and EV. It doesn't matter if the beetle is dead. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Armbrust: this is a well executed photo with strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dynastes hercules ecuatorianus MHNT.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 12:24:00 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, good image, a good shot of STS-1 on its launch pad in 1981.

Articles in which this image appears

STS-1, Space Shuttle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Tricky one this... My gut feeling is it's a little close... The whole of the launch pad isn't in view - it's cut off at the bottom corner, and the top of the tower is cut off too... But given the fact that we can never take this picture again, coupled with features showing that we don't normally see from side-on angle (the exhaust gas escape channel thing for one - centre right - as well as the various vehicles present such as the fire engine etc) I am happy enough to Support this image... gazhiley 08:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per gazhiley. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I think this image should be used in a way that produces more EV. Pine

^✉ 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per gazhiley. Dusty777 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment to clean up all the scratches and dust or to leave them? Benjamint 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Simply because there are some exceptional STS-1 launchpad photos already FP and this isn't of that same quality. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 08:55:38 (UTC)

Reason

Excellent details.

Articles in which this image appears

Nuremberg Frauenkirche

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Kolossos

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 08:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose odd sky and blurry pinnacle. Angle not central. As a Nuremberger I unfortunately don't possess a good camera :|. Regards. --Kürbis (✔) 10:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurred above bell section, and the golden orb and final spire over exposed and oddly curved. I higher elevation of viewpoint should remove that issue - given that there are obv other buildings around this church I would like to hope that there is one behind the position that this was taken that would give a better angle for full focus. gazhiley 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - the ball at the top is a little out-of-focus, but I wouldn't have realized it without it having been pointed out to me; the picture and subject are great, IMO, but the focus issue distracts from it being "Wikipedia's best work", so it's a weak support only. If there is an analogous process to Good Article/Featured Article (that is, if a picture can be submitted to be peer-reviewed as a "Good picture" as well as a "featured picture"), I'd list it there instead, where it would pass in a heartbeat. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kürbis and gazhiley. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 10:47:06 (UTC)

Reason

Large, good image, a stunning image of the natural landscape

Articles in which this image appears

Banaue Rice Terraces, Paddy field, Philippines

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Ori~

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: At upper right, there is a white triangle as if this is a panorama and there is no image data there. Also, the vine is a bit distracting. And the image seems tilted on the right half. The image is impressive though. Chris857 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: There is also an obvious stitching error 1/3 from the left. With some fixes this would be a valuable high quality image, but it needs some work... - Zephyris _Talk 20:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per above, and there is a discolored spot that's near the center of the image horizontally and near the bottom vertically. Pine^✉ 19:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I too think it needs some work. Improvements needed before I support:

• Horizon correction. The steps/levels on the left are pointing up. The ones on the right are opposite. Some perspective correction too. White triangle on top right. This is due to improper tripod set-up or no tripod.
• Greater depth of field. Could be sharper.
• Remove the vine. Very distracting.
• Shorter focal length/wider angle. Would be good to not have the mountain cut off.

Those things aside, it is a good picture with potential and a beautiful landscape.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per above issues. gazhiley 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 09:25:01 (UTC)

Reason

Good image, has free license, has EV

Articles in which this image appears

April 1962, Space Needle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jordon Kalilich

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 09:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Image quality is lacking a bit. Noisy and unsharp. Jujutacular (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fixed your "Articles in which..." bit as it was only linking to the April 1962 page... gazhiley 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jujutacular - the bottom of the tower is so out of focus it looks like this was taken during an earthquake... gazhiley 07:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not an earthquake, but very out of focus. Solution: tripod, camera in aperture priority, f/20+. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting it WAS an earthquake - just that it looked like it was due to focus issues... gazhiley 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Mine was a poor attempt at continuing your humor. Should have put more effort into it. Sorry. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 08:33:03 (UTC)

Reason

This image is frackin' awesome; it illustrates gargoyles, rain gutters, Notre Dame, and Gothic architecture all extremely well; it seems to defy the very laws of physics. I've never nominated anything on here before, but according to my knowledge of the non-technical criteria, it is excellent. I do not have the knowledge to evaluate compliance with §1; it is high-resolution (§2); it is singularly excellent (§3); it is licensed under the GFDL (§4); in my personal opinion - this criteria is subjective - it adds significantly to the encyclopedic value of the articles, and those related, mentioned in the first sentence of the nomination; it is "awesome" in the traditional sense, i.e. evoking awe in the viewer (§5); it passes §6; it has a passable description; "Gargoyles of Notre Dame in Paris"; I can't imagine how one would get much more detailed than that, without describing where they are on the building (§7); and, again, I do not have the expertise necessary to evaluate compliance with §8.

Articles in which this image appears

Gargoyles is the one I found it in; it would work in many others (see nom).

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture (although it also is Artwork/Sculpture, Engineering, History, in order of descending importance slash relevance).

Creator

User:Albertus_teolog using the signature "Krzysztof Mizera".

• Support as nominator --St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it is a bit low in the technical criteria. Poor DOF, odd angle/composition, and strong chromatic aberrations. EV is OK, but I feel this image can be easily retaken. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 05:11:27 (UTC)

Reason

Good image, has EV, large

Articles in which this image appears

Giovanni Battista Caviglia, Great Sphinx of Giza, Khufu, ist of statues by height, List of the oldest buildings in the world, Paul Solomon, Sphinx, Statue

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Barcex

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: To be honest, I'm not thrilled with the vantage point. The pyramid in the background prevents the viewer from getting a good look at the profile of the face. In addition, I would have preferred an angle that was a tad more front-on so you can see the face better. Something closer to the angle of this image. Spencer^T♦C 06:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I Sphinx I have to agree with Spencer on this one - the angle could be better, there's no deNileing it... gazhiley 08:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose does not meet all criteria:

1. Is of a high technical standard? N Composition with pyramid in background is distracting. Image is soft.
2. Is of high resolution? Y
3. Is among Wikipedia's best work? Not sure
4. Has a free license? Y
5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article? Y
6. Is verifiable? Y
7. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description? N Could be expanded.
8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation? Y

I think there is room for improvement before this image reaches FP status. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2012 at 19:40:53 (UTC)

Reason

This image meets several points of the FPC criteria. The image is high resolution, has a public domain license, verifiable, has a complete description, and I believe is among Wikipedia's best works. I believe the photo quality has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral color balance with no artifacts from compression. The is of a building on the National Historic Places list and can be found in 3 Wikipedia articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Syracuse University, Syracuse University – Comstock Tract Buildings, List of Syracuse University buildings

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

ZeWrestler - self nomination

• Support as nominator --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Framing is too tight and sky is blown... Would prefer a better angle too but not sure if it's possible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Diliff. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Diliff gazhiley 07:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dull-looking subject, indifferently shot. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 08:27:18 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Eastern phoebe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

John Benson

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; but need a proper title here. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. Fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The other image in the article by the same author is better in almost every respect. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Both are good works and look very different. The other image looks like an ordinary composition but this looks a rare and attractive frame. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the other one as alt. Tomer T (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'good' isn't the criteria though - EV is - the alt shows much more plumage.

• Support alt I prefer the alt, it has much better EV.  ■ MMXX ^talk 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If anything then the original should be nominated for delisting (in the bottom of this page). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist? Nothing is already featured here. Both are featured in Commons only. Jkadavoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.63.221 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the original picture.--Kürbis (✔) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt only. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt, Neutral on Original --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original, support alt Better pose in the alt. --Pine^✉ 07:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sayornis phoebe -Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 00:51:10 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting photo with good EV as the only photo in the article showing bobcat kittens and demonstrating that their behavior includes climbing trees.

Articles in which this image appears

Bobcat

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Summer M. Tribble (daughter of David R. Tribble)

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 00:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Too cute! but Oppose :( - I'm not a photographer other than happy snaps, but from my time here I believe this may have a "blown sky"? :/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't think the sky is a distraction here, it's pretty obscured by the leaves and the kittens. I'd say that cuteness works in favor of this photo since the Featured Picture criteria includes "(The photo) illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." --Pine^✉ 04:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the out of focus blown areas are incidental to this image and are not a significant problem IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Matthewedwards and the distracting unfocused leaves around. Jkadavoor (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kittens. With big paws. Up a tree. Kittens. Probably too dangerous for FP status: the Cheezburger people say pics like this cause something they call 'splort' (viewers' heads asplode from the cute). Plutonium27 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 09:43:49 (UTC)

Reason

Large encyclopedic image with nice bright colors

Articles in which this image appears

Butchart Gardens, Garden, Horticulture

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

NorwegianMarcus

• Support either as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Very much overexposed. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per J Milburn. Sky is blown. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't feel that the sky is a distraction from the beautiful garden in this case, but that's just my personal opinion. --Pine^✉ 04:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The path is also overexposed, and you can see underexposure in a lot of the foliage. There's lens flare (I think) streaking down the middle of the picture, and the detail is, in many places, lost in a blur of colour (which doesn't quite look as vibrant as it could- perhaps, again, due to the very harsh lighting). This is a beautiful subject, and by no means a bad photograph, but it's a long way from the professional quality we would want for FPC. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose beautiful, but there are a few chromatic aberrations. --Kürbis (✔) 09:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note added on Alt. May be a lens flare as suggested by J Milburn. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above. Personally, I find the blown out sky rather distracting... It kind of hurts my eyes. Dusty777 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, blown sky. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 23:04:04 (UTC)

Reason

Simple two-tone image with aesthetically beautiful curves of prehistoric hill drawing
(This is a vector version that replaces an earlier raw scan)

Articles in which this image appears

William Plenderleath, Uffington White Horse, Hill figure, Leucippotomy

FP category for this image

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

Creator

iantresman after William Plenderleath

• Support as nominator --Iantresman (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you say something about your thinking in converting this to an SVG? I don't mean to sound skeptical--it's just I usually associate SVGs with diagrams, logos, and the like: if you're ascribing the drawing to Plenderleath, I wouldn't expect you to make it a trace rather than a scan of his drawing (or a scan of a print of his drawing). Again, I don't mean to criticize it, I'd just like to hear something about what how you're conceiving of this. Chick Bowen 02:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenderleath had already decided to use a sketch, rather than a photo, in his book (see here). He doesn't say why, perhaps there was no good vantage point for a photo. But compared to some of the other drawings in his book, I felt that this had an aesthetically pleasing look. The question was then whether to use the original raw scan, or tidy up. I thought the original scan looked messy, and the text showing through the drawing was distracting. So I tried tidying up the scan, and of course the simplicity of the curves lent itself to being converted to .svg, and I felt that it has been significantly enhanced. Of course it may not not be representative, but to me, it still looked good. --Iantresman (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Horse is indeed difficult to view from the ground.©Geni 16:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose included in galleries in two of the articles listed, limited EV at Uffington White Horse as it doesn't show the reader how it is formed in the hillside or anything. William Plenderleath doesn't suggest that he is notable for his sketches, but for his writings about Cherhill White Horse. Why not find a beautiful photo of the landscape, or a scan of the actual sketch rather than a 21st century svg representation? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is indeed a powerful image in its stark lines and a similar rendering made a memorable cover for one of the greatest albums of the 1980s: XTC's English Settlement (I have a t-shirt of it, issued as a limited edition by the fan club in 1990). But IMHO its basically an aerial photo gone over with computer tracing paper and such a drawing just in and of itself doesn't convince as an FP: the White Horse has been beautifully photographed many times and its surroundings and location are essential to its historical/mythical representation and symbolism, and therefore its very existence and meaning. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 16:21:30 (UTC)

Reason

Much EV, High quality

Articles in which this image appears

Titanacris albipes

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment file has not been in article for 7 days. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only preferable for the image to have been present >=7 days. The Nominator clearly feels this is an obvious case, where EV is concerned, I don't disagree. Benjamint 20:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Concerning the placement of the picture in the article... Why is it just kind of thrown in their? It's not even placed correctly. Dusty777 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article gives me no more information than this image caption. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The lack of text in the article makes this image all the more important. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems a good point. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 15:08:55 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Great Ocean Road

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blown left, oddly compressed-looking centre, murky tones make it look fuzzy. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Plutonium27 and mildly distracting foreground. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There seems to be something odd going on with the centre of this photo Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Tomer T (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question what do you guys mean by something off in the centre? I can't see what you mean... gazhiley 08:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything wrong either really, but unfortunately I agree that the weather was a bit murky for this to be featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah the weather is the only reason I haven't supported this tbh - can be retaken at a nice brighter time... I'm curious though about what the others above have spotted cause I can't see anything wrong... gazhiley 09:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • May be talking about the "disturbing" wave patters on the centre. Wind draws beautiful patters on water on both sides; but the centre is a bit disturbing to my eyes; and the transition is not smooth (again a poor climate issue only). Jkadavoor (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm amazed if that's the case - living near some of the most beautiful beaches in the world it looks like a perfectly normal wave pattern for a shallow estury inlet to me... Thank you for having a guess tho! gazhiley 10:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 13:11:34 (UTC)

Reason

Great clarity and composition, good EV (for the article Chicken (food)) and quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Chicken (food), Tastes like chicken

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Tomascastelazo

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it's cluttered. It could be improved by cropping the scale out, but I still find that loose plastic bag in the back almost as distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while DOF usage is good, the background clutter is too much. Also, image is quite noisy for a 20D. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It doesn't have to be pretty to have EV. You get hung, you get weighed, you get sold in a plastic bag - composition makes perfect sense to me. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EV isn't the only criterion for FP ... it has to look good. The composition may tell the story, but at the expense of the aesthetics involved. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the criteria - they are very specific on that point. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Samsara. This is a 100% reality in Asia, Africa and Latin America. I think pictures should tell the truth. (We may have a separate FP for "Chickens in European market" though.) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jkadavoor. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 19:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 12:54:54 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Prodasineura verticalis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

JDP90

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sharpness could be better but for something so small I think this is good enough. I like the colors and composition. --Pine^✉ 20:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Reluctant oppose after reconsidering the focus issues. We've been able to get pictures of butterflies that don't have sharpness problems of this magnitude. --Pine^✉ 16:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Joydeep (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 10:17:52 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Levice

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Pudelek

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Very nice. IQ is slightly lacking, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by IQ sorry King of? Not heard that on here before... gazhiley 08:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• IQ = image quality. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah Thanks - blonde moment there! gazhiley 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support per King of Hearts. A tad sharper would be better. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral sharpness could be improved and there would be more EV if the castle was discussed at greater length in the article. --Pine^✉ 08:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per above sharpness issues... gazhiley 11:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 08:40:12 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and good EV in describing the cemetary at the Mount of Olives, in the article about the mountain

Articles in which this image appears

Mount of Olives

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Berthold Werner

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support high EV. A little soft. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose soft, and the image placement in the article isn't as good as it could be although this is probably easy to fix. --Pine^✉ 08:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like placement under "Burial and resurrection" would damage the article's overall design. Tomer T (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2012 at 19:51:11 (UTC)

Reason

EV, IQ

Articles in which this image appears

Microlophus delanonis

FP category for this image

birds

Creator

Benjamint 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Fails criteria 2. Dusty777 22:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2012 at 12:24:55 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Spinifex Pigeon

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Jim Bendon, Karratha, Australia

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too soft. DOF is low. Dusty777 22:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DOF isn't the problem, it was taken at f22 which will have negatively impacted the sharpness even on a 1D; DOF is actually too high :p Benjamint 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the DOF is too high or low, the effect is the same. Dusty777 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, subjects need to be sharper, and stand out from the background better. Impressive low noise for ISO used however. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose, too much diffraction softening. Might have better luck photographing a single bird at a shallower DOF. Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2012 at 13:10:50 (UTC)

Reason

Interesting image of a difficult-to-photograph subject (these nodules are usually underground).

Articles in which this image appears

Frankia alni

FP category for this image

Bacteria

Creator

Cwmhiraeth

• Support as nominator --Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose fails minimum 1500px. Too cluttered and soft. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2012 at 05:59:16 (UTC)

Reason

This has strong EV and is a good large photo. It's the lead image for the article BMW Headquarters. Also, I've just added this large image to BMW and History of BMW. This photo is already featured on Commons and on Spanish Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

BMW Headquarters, BMW, History of BMW

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 05:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. This has very few (if any) faults. Great picture. Dusty777 22:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I don't see why they haven't leveled the top of the museum off though - doesn't make sense to me... Not that that's got anything to do with the nom! gazhiley 08:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought of that too. It looks like heck with the roof in two levels, but that doesn't effect the nom. Dusty777 19:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would it benefit from CW tilt correction? technically its tilted but it might be better how it is Benjamint 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Excellent composition (background avoids being distracting, though it easily could have been) and technically perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The picture was removed from BMW; but still enough EV. Jkadavoor (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no faults, good EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:4 cilindros y museo BMW, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 02.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2012 at 14:17:58 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

SNCB Class 77

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No complaints. Looks good. Dusty777 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this photo us unlikely to win a beauty contest, but it's a good clear image of the subject, good for identification. --Pine^✉ 08:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above, although beauty is in the eye of the beholder Pine... gazhiley 08:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets all criteria. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with the comments above. It looks really good Redalert2fan (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Loc7798 R01 alt.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 04:51:59 (UTC)

Reason

High Ev as lead image, good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Immaculate Conception, etc

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Bartolomé Esteban Murillo

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't this one better? Tomer T (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that's much better. Particularly, there are Holy Spirit and the serpent of sin, being trampled by Mary. Brandmeister^talk 15:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added it as an alt as it is better. Spongie555 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tiepolo's is closer to Francisco Pacheco's ideal (not that that necessarily makes it better, of course) Yomangani^talk 12:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, why are we considering two different paintings made 100 years apart in different countries? Chick Bowen 16:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To determine which one depicts the Immaculate Conception better :) Brandmeister^talk 10:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral The alt is much better, but I saddly can not view the image on full size. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• However, I think File:Bartolomé Esteban Perez Murillo 021.jpg is the best from all three. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I viewed the image in Photoshop CS, it displays the image well after about 1 minute of loading. Brandmeister^talk 11:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 08:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both I'm not sure how the original is illustrating the Immaculate Conception. The original looks more like a generic painting of Mary despite its title. I don't think that the alt is a particularly encyclopedic illustration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it seems to show other parts of beliefs about Mary. These images might get FP for placement in other articles, but I don't think either of them should be featured for their use in Immaculate Conception. Pine^✉ 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there is any doubt that they are paintings of the Immaculate Conception. They follow (to greater or lesser extents) Pacheco's idea of how to represent it. The Annunciation was rather easy to depict - Gabriel turns up, Mary looks shocked, mouths "You're kidding" - but the moment of immaculate conception caused problems until they hit on this representation. Yomangani^talk 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we must have one or the other as an FP for their use in the Immaculate Conception article, I prefer the original since the alt depicts Mary crushing a snake, which I think relates to beliefs that have little to do with the Immaculate Conception. I think the alt is a better depiction of beliefs about Mary in general so I might support it but I wouldn't support it for its use in this particular article. Pine^✉ 00:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt, very symbolic, although the colors are a bit dull. Brandmeister^talk 08:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Where is the EV supposed to be here? The alt isn't in Immaculate Conception. It's in a gallery and a museum page, where it has very little EV, and an artist page, where it isn't even mentioned. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EV is for the Immaculate Conception page. The alt was put up so we can decide between the both of them, which one has the most EV so we can change the lead image of the Immaculate Conception article with the winner. Spongie555 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FPC doesn't decide what the lead image in an article is. We'd only replace an image with an edited version of it, not an entirely different image. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt first needs to be placed for the minimum period in the articles where EV has been claimed, and a new nomination created for proper assessment. Julia\^talk 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2012 at 22:55:54 (UTC)

Reason

Photograph of a Mesolithic grave assembly from Téviec in France, showing the skeletons of two young women who died violently but were buried with great care and decorated with necklaces made of shells. Good EV, already used in various places on the English Wikipedia. This evocative and very high resolution photo was Wikimedia Commons' Picture of the Day for 12 October 2012; its creator already has five Featured Picture credits on the English Wikipedia (see User talk:Archaeodontosaurus). Would make a great Main Page featured picture for this Halloween!

Articles in which this image appears

Téviec, Mesolithic, Muséum de Toulouse

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History

Creator

Archaeodontosaurus

• Support as nominator --Prioryman (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Harsh photoshopped black surround is odd - would be more suitable to just have the original picture, with it's natural surround... gazhiley 08:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, it's weird having the skeletons just floating in outer space. Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC
  • I'm inclined to agree with this, although it is possible that the original image had a distracting, or unappealing background. If this is the case I might support it, because otherwise it is a very good image16bitz 19:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found that the reason it's been rendered like this is because of the way the original is exhibited - see [2]. It's basically behind glass in a bright red box. It's still a fascinating exhibit but the original background is pretty horrible. This rendering of it actually looks better than real life; there's been some very smart Photoshopping to remove the background. Prioryman (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your link doesn't seem to work sorry, but thank you for going to the effort of finding it... I personally would like to have a look at the original picture personally before I consider changing my opinion... I am not keen on the black background so personally would be more inclined to support the original - depending on what it looks like of course! gazhiley 21:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty bloody awful is my opinion of the original. :-) Sorry about the link, try this: [3]. Prioryman (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for "digging that up" Prioryman ;-) - It's not the original file that this nom came from though, which is what I was (probably not so clearly) hinting at finding... But I agree the casing around the exhibit is poor... I still can't support it though as it just looks really bad (IMO) presented like this... I would rather see a tight crop cutting out all of the black surround... gazhiley 09:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bonjour. The grave is a reconstruction dating from 1938, from photographic images that had been made. It was completely restored in 2011.

If you look closely there are 3 flint in the middle in front. These are the three parts that were replaced last. As soon as our restorer Gransac Benoit asked the last flint I told him "now it is mine, shoot you," the photographs were taken in the laboratory. Photographs because not having enough light and only four LED lamps. I had to make 4 images by changing lamps instead. This method is not recommended. But that day I was angry, I wanted to make this image. I removed the setting of the laboratory and I've tried several backgrounds. I finally chose to magnify the grave as an "object of art". I am not impartial in this choice as I have with this is on a very important emotional relationship for 50 years that I know. It has influenced the course of my life. The grave will soon be exposed for a few months in South Africa. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above comment. I don't think anybody else will get an easy chance to take a photo of this subject with that much facilities. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2012 at 19:57:34 (UTC)

Reason

EV, IQ

Articles in which this image appears

gull, Swallow-tailed Gull

FP category for this image

bird

Creator

Benjamint 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Fails criteria 2. Dusty777 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pity though, I reckon (same with image below). JJ Harrison (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say they fail the criteria, I would say the criteria has failed them. I can see why the min was raised but I don't like seeing images slightly larger and much lower quality passing. Resolution shouldn't be such a black and white line; it should be a gradient based on mitigating circumstances and quality IMO but I don't doubt I'm outnumbered on this Benjamint 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution has a great deal to do with the quality of the picture. Allows you to see more detail and increases the EV. The only times that this part of the criteria is overlooked is in historical pictures (with few exceptions otherwise.) Do you happen to have a higher resolution picture available? Dusty777 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Benjamint, I agree with you that the minimum size shouldn't be a bright line rule, and I don't treat it that way myself. However, this photo is well below the minimum size and we should be able to get a larger size photo of this subject. This isn't a historic photograph that's irreplaceable. Thanks for your interest in Featured Pictures. --Pine^✉ 08:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolution has much less of an impact on EV and detail than you imply Dusty. Case in point this image of 500px below the limit but of above average IQ vs File:Prodasineura verticalis, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 13 09 2012.jpg which is a 100px above the limit, and that's good enough for Pines despite the whole raft of technical problems, such as the fact that no single part of the image is actually sharp despite the obvious over-sharpening halos (there are plenty of FPs of subjects at around 30mm with far greater IQ, and damselflies are one of the easiest things to photograph since they're so flat. they fit into the focus plane perfectly). The problem with setting a hard line in the sand is that people get too focused on it and double-standards emerge. Just because my images are 600px smaller doesn't mean they have any less EV or detail. Thank's for your sincere and heartfelt welcome to fpc Pine ;p Benjamint 07:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood your previous comments. I must say however, that EV is not the sole purpose of featured pictures. While all pictures contribute some amount of EV, that does not mean that all pictures need not go by the technical criteria and get promoted to FP. While your picture contributes excellent EV, it does not meet the technical criteria. Believe me, if it had 600px more, I would support without a problem, but it does not meet the criteria, therefore, I don't feel it should be promoted to FP status. Do you have a higher resolution picture available? Dusty777 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Having read your comments about File:Prodasineura verticalis, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 13 09 2012.jpg, you've persuaded me to change my mind on that one. --Pine^✉ 16:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with Benjamin. If this was upsampled to the min requirements, it may pass and that is a flaw in our criteria? --Muhammad(talk) 07:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if Benjamin doesn't have, or doesn't want to provide a higher resolution image, we can see what people think of it upsampled to the minimum requirements... But part of the reason for the more stringent requirements (well, perhaps more correctly, a by-product of) is the pressure to provide a higher resolution image. If we happily accepted low resolution images, some people would provide only the minimum. Clearly this image has been downsampled prior to uploading (it's too sharp to be straight out of camera), so the resolution provided was a decision he made, rather than being due to a crop. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'd just like to correct Dusty's comment that "The only times that [the min size] part of the criteria is overlooked is in historical pictures (with few exceptions otherwise.)" The criteria actually say "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration". The "technically difficult" and "higher resolution could realistically be acquired" clauses were specifically added in order to compensate for some subjects/situations making it difficult to achieve (with comparison to, say studio or landscape photography). The classic example was a distant bird cropped from an image taken through an extreme telephoto lens. There's no exif info to let us know whether the lens was appropriate to this kind of shot, but the article's page is illustrated with close ups taken with compact cameras that show more detail than this, so I reckon this isn't a difficult bird to shoot. If Diliff is right that this has been downsampled, then there's really no valid excuse for the small size. Colin°^Talk 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've kind of missed the point Colin, might be worth having a re-read if you're interested in the discussion as I intend to highlight this potential flaw in the criteria in more detail on the talk page in a day or two. I will propose that in some cases distinction should be made between "spatial resolution" and "actual resolution" when assessing whether an image passes criteria 2. This is relevant to both small images with high IQ, and some unusually large images with low IQ. Benjamint 14:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think I have. Your image has less detail than several images of such gulls on Commons (and two in the article), all of which were taken with pocket compact cameras. The set of photographs of the gull with chick on Commons (one of which is in the article) have more charm and EV than this, and more detail. Based on this, the "mitigating circumstances" you speak of don't seem to apply. This is a low-detail picture of a bird, which appears to be relatively easy to capture close-up with cheap equipment. Colin°^Talk 15:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't even bother responding to your comment on the other images because I assumed you were joking. The close-up of the head is downsampled and is also below the fpc requirements. Flash photography of animals is also illegal in the islands. The image of the gull and it's chick being harassed (beak open in a gesture of "please go away now". and taken with a focal length of 28mm i'm not surprised she wants him to back off!) is also quite small as well as being soft, overexposed and doesn't even have more meaningful detail imo. For identification purposes mine has every bit the same detail without the blown breast, chopped off feet and weird crop. But hey, some would call that charm, whatever floats your boat Colin. Benjamint 23:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A couple of other images that weren't in the article had variously 700px and 900px horizontal resolution and both of appalling quality. Not even sure what the "several images" are that you speak of. Benjamint 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying the other pictures are FA quality: they merely illustrate that, on the evidence I can see, there are no mitigating circumstances for the small pic. I don't know why you mention flash -- the other pics I looked at had their flash turned off. Benjamint, your picture is a good picture for the lead and valuable for that. This is FP so we don't just award a gold star to any old bird photo that's got the exposure and focus right. It is fine. Not outstanding. And its small size is one aspect of its lack of outstandingness :-) Colin°^Talk 07:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Benjamint, do you happen to have a higher resolution picture available? If you do, by all means upload it, it will get an automatic support from me. Dusty777 01:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid it's not available, it was taken with a 400mm for the person who asked though. I'm not overly concerned about this one nomination, but I see FPC as not simply a selection process, but as a process of group education where we school the wider community on how best to achieve yet more FPs. Comments about angle, position and composition from an EV POV is really valuable to myself and other photographers. As long as I get "speedy close" responses (which are great for saving voters time, and I wholeheartedly agree with) I'm not learning and improving. We have to look past the numbers sometimes and see the image. I would like to contribute to this page more, not just with nominations, but by pointing out double standards and highlighting areas for possible improvement in the process and criteria as well. I hope such input will be welcomed. Benjamint 01:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can compromise on the resolution here because it is enough to describe the subject in an article or to show more details on a separate page. I will oppose if nominated at COM:FPC due to the unsuitability of other uses. But could you explain why I prefer this over File:Creagrus furcatus -Galapagos Islands-8.jpg? Jkadavoor (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• the one you linked actually has a really nice thumbnail but at full res it's a plague of digital noise (and halos, they tried and failed to sharpen the tail feathers?) and despite it's superior "actual resolution" it's "spatial resolution" is very small. The moral of these nominations I'm making is that extra pixels don't always mean extra detail. Sometimes high IQ is the mitigation of low res in my opinion. Benjamint 23:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You may right; I'm not good to assess such technical matters. Hope someone else (prefer an article editor) will compare them and make an opinion. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as illustrating a Wikipedia article's lead, both the nomination and the one Jkadavoor links to are essentially identical. They have identical poses and situations and both have sufficient detail to help with identification and appreciate all the features of the bird. I agree the nomination shows very slightly more feather detail and the other has noise and sharpening issues. I just don't see that it follows that "bird mostly fills frame, subject in focus, reasonable exposure => FP". This is supposed to be our best work. The pixel size of the image is indeed a surrogate measure of the resolution (i.e., detail resolved and retained) of an image but it is a simple measure and is intended to prevent endless per-article discussions or folk downsizing to a poor threshold. Colin°^Talk 08:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2012 at 20:21:56 (UTC)

Reason

Good angle and interesting flower with a slight protruding 3D feel to it

Articles in which this image appears

Mussaenda erythrophylla

FP category for this image

Plants/Flowers

Creator

Tatiana Gerus

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; like to see the picture at top left of the page. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose grainy. --Pine^✉ 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose not too thrilled with the lighting/obtrusive shadows. Spencer^T♦C 06:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2012 at 02:14:30 (UTC)

Reason

Good image of the STS-1 crew members, has a free license, large

Articles in which this image appears

STS-1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 02:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this image has EV and was competently executed by the photographer, the composition is awfully cheesy, even within this genre. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support EV is more important than aesthetics. This photo has good EV for the article, STS-1 has historic significance for NASA, and this is the only photo in this article showing the two crew members together from the front. --Pine^✉ 08:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I personally think that the cheesy grins and stilted pose mean that this falls well short of being an example of the best photographs included in articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like this photo any more than I liked this painting but my sense of aesthetics may not be what people considered aesthetic in 1979 or 1634. I think of aesthetics as a bonus. EV and technical quality seem more important according to the Featured Picture Criteria which says "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." I think we can make a strong argument that this photo isn't "among Wikipedia's best work" aesthetically, but in terms of EV and historic value, I think this photo qualifies for FP. --Pine^✉ 11:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pine's criteria here about this being the only shot of Young and Crippen together from the front would (theoretically at least) mean to a precedent that 'rarity value' can be argued for just about anything. Anyway, there's no shortage of good quality STS-1 shots and some are exceptional: this standard NASA publicity still doesn't have FP value. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The Featured Picture Criteria discusses rarity value in several places. This sentence seems especially relevant: "Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all." This isn't to say that uniqueness alone qualifies something for FP, but rarity value is well worth considering in combination with EV and other FP criteria. Regarding the other STS-1 photos, do we have a different photo of the crew members that's of FP quality? The only other photos of crew in the article that I see are File:Columbia.sts-1.egress.triddle.jpg and File:Columba.sts-1.training.triddle.jpg which aren't FP quality in my opinion. It seems to me that the photo nominated here is the only photo of the STS-1 crew that's within reach of the FP criteria. --Pine^✉ 07:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 08:04:21 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates the subject with a good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Egg (food)

FP category for this image

Category:Food and drink

Creator

User:Gangulybiswarup

• Support as nominator --Shivashree (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Doesn't appear to be in the article the nom says it's in? gazhiley 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Egg_(food)#Anatomy_and_characteristics section. Shivashree (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is filled with so many eggs; so difficult to see on first glance. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shows anatomy of the egg, so I think it fits in the anatomy section rather than being at the top. Shivashree (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How odd - it doesn't load that picture on my computer. When I hold my mouse over the white space under the picture showing a cut away with lines pointing at each section, the bar at the bottom of my screen shows the filename, but the picture just doesn't load for me... How strange... Thank you... gazhiley 17:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose . The reflection of the lights is distracting. But it's an awesome topic, we need a featured picture of this! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the "pawprint" looking white bits at the top? If so I Oppose as well, as I believed that to be part of the egg, and thus it is misleading... gazhiley 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really lighting? I don't think it is. Looking at this image (not a great example, but the best I could find), there are some small air bubbles on the top of the egg, while the flash is up farther front. Spencer^T♦C 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This image makes it pretty clear to me: [4]. Support, and sorry for the confusion. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• According to a previous discussion on Commons, it seems to be an air bubble rather than flashlight. I have left a message on the photographer's talkpage to clear the confusion here. Shivashree (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read the importance of the air bubble in the egg at [5]. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link. It's also mentioned the article per nom at Egg_(food)#Air_cell and well-illustrated in this SVG file. Shivashree (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the above information I now Support. Thanks for clarifying guys. gazhiley 11:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As new versions are showing since I voted may I just adjust my vote slightly... Support New Version with spot removed, Oppose Crop as too tight, and Oppose Original due to afore mentioned spot... gazhiley 08:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The round shape seven white patches are air filled bubbles under soft membrane. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC).. New Version Jkadavoor (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - unique, of encyclopaedic value, and very attention-grabbing. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 08:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can someone edit out the spot on the white surface to the lower left of the egg? Spencer^T♦C 06:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I boldly cropped the image to deal with this. Pine^✉ 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after crop. --Pine^✉ 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The crop seems too tight, makes the egg to seem larger than it actually is, isn't it? Shivashree (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The cropped version does not reflect it's volume as the shadow missing, and appears very bold with lack of 'free space'. I uploaded the new version from the original .NEF file and very little retouched by Photoshop to keep it's maximum unique colors.-- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The retouch is good although in general I prefer photos that are as authentic as possible. For that reason I prefer the original to the retouch. Since the spot on the white surface is not very relevant to the subject of the photo, I will say that I Support original and Weak support retouch and crop after the discussion and looking at the alternatives. --Pine^✉ 04:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support New Version and Original, and Oppose Crop Per above. Dusty777 19:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chicken Egg without Eggshell 5859.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2012 at 04:53:21 (UTC)

Reason

High ev as lead image, good quality, also featured on commons and Croatian and Azerbaijani wikipedias

Articles in which this image appears

Pietà (Michelangelo), Pietà, etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Stanislav Traykov

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support valuable and much EV. Alborzagros (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per Alborzagros --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small and bad angle. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and while mine may not be an expert opinion, I'll share it. Having been inside the cathedral, I understand how difficult it was to get this shot. The light is so low in there that a standard tourist camera or setup (point and shoot or DSLR w/ no tripod) will produce horrible results. So unless the Vatican's photographer releases his edition, we won't get a better picture (I am assuming the Vatican has a photographer, and he —sorry, not likely to be a she— would have permission to take enough equipment and extra lights). The entire statue is in focus, good detail is visible. The EV is very good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 00:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was in St Peter's not long ago after I received my STB (even though they can issue it in America, it's "traditional", if you will, to get it from the related pontifical faculty in Rome), and I'm surprised the photographer was able to get anything more than shadows out of the picture. My pictures were shadows, with lighter shadows, and some chiaroscuro, with a hint of a sculpture somewhere in them. In summum, echo and support per Wingtipvorte. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Best that can be done under the circumstances, unless you get Kevin Garnett to hold your camera for you. Chick Bowen 02:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The base appears slightly tilted to the left, perhaps should be fixed. Brandmeister^talk 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2012 at 17:15:50 (UTC)

Reason

Incredible size, great quality, nice EV

Articles in which this image appears

St. Francis in Ecstasy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Giovanni Bellini, restaurated by Google Art Project, nominated by GreatOrangePumpkin

• Support as nominator --Kürbis (✔) 17:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as big as the original painting, 100mB, seems to be a bit dark (but I have not the competence to evaluate the technical aspects in detail, i.e. the trees on the upper left point of action, are they supposed to be that dark in the original?), amazing piece of artwork (and I'm a Dominican - we traditionally don't get on with Franciscans). Has EV in articles on religious experience, artwork, St Francis, desert fathers (although it's a bit anachronistic for that), Order of Friars Minor, etc. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yes, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you, back. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as His Beatitude the Archbishop says above, it is dark. These Google Art images have been consistently so; as I have said before, I believe this is so that blemishes in the paint, the results of age, will be less apparent, even though it also means that details are less visible. Thus, I'm afraid I'll have to weak oppose again, as I have other Google paintings. It's too bad, because taking high-resolution images of these paintings is obviously a worthy thing to do. Incidentally, if you've never been to the Frick, go now. You can stay in New York more cheaply than you think if you work at it (and don't mind a shared bathroom). Chick Bowen 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm having trouble with supporting this because the article has only two refs. Just because the painting was made by a notable artist doesn't mean that the painting itself is notable. If this picture was used in some article such as Saint Francis of Assisi in a way that contributed substantial EV then I would have an easier time supporting this. As the article stands right now, I think the article might be subject to AFD for lacking sufficient references to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline. --Pine^✉ 07:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article isn't great, and as it happens I'm not crazy about this reproduction per above, but I don't think there should be much doubt about the importance of the painting--a quick glance at JSTOR shows dozens of scholarly articles devoted primarily to this painting and hundreds that discuss it alongside others. Chick Bowen 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Giovanni Bellini - Saint Francis in the Desert - Google Art Project.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2012 at 07:19:08 (UTC)

Reason

Very High Quality Photo and Good Framing, also featured picture in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Mitra stictica

FP category for this image

Creator

Llez

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the shells appear blurry in places but I can't tell if that's because the camera is OOF or if this is because the patterns on the shells are smudgy. --Pine^✉ 08:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Re to Pine: I think it's both. The texture definitely looks a bit creamy and naturally smeared. However, if you look closely there is noticeable OOF, but it goes away at 3000px. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per KoH. I think Llez usually contribute his works as it is without any down-sampling (here 36MP). But the image good in a reasonable resolution for most uses. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice pattern, but it's sad to see an empty shell without snail (EV would be higher otherwise). Brandmeister^talk 11:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above comments. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful Meysamin (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Looks great, clear, non-distracting. You know, it makes me wish I had one of them to play with. It's so neon... Thekillerpenguin (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mitra stictica 01.JPG --Julia\^talk 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2012 at 09:11:58 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Pico do Fogo, Fogo, Cape Verde, Geography of Cape Verde

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back

Creator

NASA Earth Observatory

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good image quality and strong EV, primarily to Fogo (since some sort of labels would be more useful for the Pico do Fogo article). But strong EV overall. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting view of the island. High quality imagery. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good ev and nice quality. Spencer^T♦C 21:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like satan is attempting to escape hell. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellently clear picture of the volcano.Volcanos rock! Lemon martini (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ^ the force is strong with this one. Yes, volcanoes do rock! It's a shame there isn't a more dynamic shot, but this is a nice one too. ResMar 21:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fogo, Cape Verde Islands.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2012 at 17:10:14 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality and EV. Golden hour lighting and a whooping 70+ mega pixels

Articles in which this image appears

Taj Mahal, Indo-Islamic architecture

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Support Alt-1 This is fantastic. The quality is amazing... I suggest a D&R to replace the current FP with this one. Excellent. Dusty777 19:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Carrier has arrived". Brandmeister^talk 19:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I'm getting the Starcraft reference here.... JJ Harrison (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What would it take to get a picture without the minarets being distorted? Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From this view I'd say its probably impossible to get a picture without distortions. It's a battle between getting the minarets right or the symmetry of the Taj. A rectilinear projection gets the symmetry right but messes up the minarets even more. Cylindrical projection gets the minarets right but the symmetry is affected. [6] gave this a custom panini projection to reduce minaret distortion and get the symmetry correct as well --Muhammad(talk) 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Consider File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg too. BTW, do we need separate FPs for sunrise, sunset, noon, night and full-moon? Jkadavoor (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a different view than our current FP, while the FP you link to has a very tight crop --Muhammad(talk) 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always prefer a view where the religious symbols are clearly visible (just like a cross on top of a church). Here I wish to see the symbol with the half moon on the top of Taj Mahal instead of just a line. It is very clear in the other file I referred; and much more details even though a very tight composition. So Oppose. I've no problem if we've a plan to feature more than one picture though. Jkadavoor (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want religious symbols, this view has the howz. I think it would be best if multiple views are available as this gives more insight to the reader --Muhammad(talk) 15:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the interesting info; but I can't find anything related to my comment above. When we take a portrait, we take it from the front; not from back or from a side. Am I right? (I expressed almost similar opinion here.) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The howz is usually found near mosques, hence the religious symbolism. Re portrait, depends what one wants to capture. If you want a person's ponutail for instance, you wouldn't take a dead front show would you? --Muhammad(talk) 07:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks again for teaching me more new words, but prefer an EOD for the time being; leaving to other's opinions. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the distortion mentionned by Saffron Blaze - Even in the thumbnail it looks wierd, and close up looks like a demolition job is in progress as the inner sides of both minarets are so much lower than the outsides... gazhiley 10:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1 now the distortion has been fixed. Thanks Muhammad. gazhiley 09:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't know what people have agains the distortions on the minarets. It's not so dramatic and I think it's good compromise, as per what Muhammad mentions. Not quite sure you can squeeze everything into the frame and avoid the distortions as far as my understanding of the local topography goes [7]. Or can Saffron Blaze find a view of same side without the distortions (and not something looking upward please) ? And that view is complementary to the most usual one, so I think it's OK we don't see the moon (how far some people go to find reason to oppose...) - Blieusong (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed link to understand the author couldn't step back (sorry!) [8] - Blieusong (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1 also. Either is fine to me. Just would like to point out that although it doesn't look like so, the warped version is less realistic (depending how u look at it) than the first. It would be like warping (or anything else) Antartica on a worldmap to make it look smaller. - Blieusong (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ...And how fast the rescue team will arrive to save when one of their friend in danger. Is this almost like the support for support "rat race" in Flickr? Jkadavoor (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very mature of you Jkadavoor. Pessimism will get you nowhere --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I do have sympathy for Muhammad and all his very good contributions. Hope this doesn't prevent me from supporting his work ;) (which I've also often opposed btw). - Blieusong (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And there is nothing wrong for his sympathy for your very good contributions too. BTW, what a beautiful name you have! (I just noticed.) It is really like a song! Jkadavoor (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Distortion is too distracting... Otherwise a lovely image. — raekyt 20:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm sympathetic to the distortion created by panoramas, particularly when there is no way to avoid them due to the subject's physical constraints. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't something be done in software to midigate or remove these distortions some? If not then would a non-panorama or not such a large one be better to represent this structure without the distortion? — raekyt 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe CS6 can do this. Samsara (FA • FP) 22:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a physical geometric constraint, not a matter of 'removing the distortions' in software. Panoramic stitching involves 'bending' the scene in order to project it on a flat plane. All photography has this limitation, however. The only thing that sets panoramic stitching apart is that you can create a wider frame than is usually possible with a single photo. Because of this, distortion is often greater than you would normally get in a single photo. But it doesn't mean that an equivalent single photo wouldn't have the same distortion, if the vertical lines were straightened as per architectural photography convention. Software cannot remove distortions, it can only minimise one kind of distortion at the expense of another by warping the scene, which would not help things in this instance, IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To add to what Diliff wrote, the Photoshop CS 6 adaptive wide angle filter that you may be referring to applies (to my understanding) the principles of Panini projection. I redid a smaller res version in PS and applied the filter and the results were similar to this one here --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • These distortions are due to the wide angle of view, whether by a wide-angle lens or a wide projection from stitching software. It can be fixed by standing further back, provided that is possible. As the angle of view narrows, the distoritions diminish. There are pictures of this building without distorted minarets for the classic view from the south. I suspect (from Google Maps) that Muhammad had a wall behind him and could not increase the distance. Without hiring a helicopter. Or jet pack. :-) Colin°^Talk 12:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I was standing at the beginning of the mosque and moving further away from the Taj would have led to a blocked view. WHat's your view regarding the image Colin? --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of repeating what others explained in nice way already : Author stood as far as he could from the subject (check map, I gave link above). So no choice, have to use wide angle to encompass everything. Wide angle comes with its amount of distortion. No magic. Again, just google a little, and hopefully you won't find many pic (if at all) of similar view, with the whole subject, all verticals so, and no distortion. Only way to avoid the stretching on the top of minarets would be to look upward, but I wouldn't trade the verticals for that here. - Blieusong (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone point me to the clause in the FP rules that say we can only have one FP per subject? It seems especially harsh for major subjects like this that might have excellent photographs from various angles, or rooms or times of day/year. Colin°^Talk 20:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each image would have to be encyclopaedically used in an article. If you wish to be free of this constraint, may I direct you to Commons FPC? Samsara (FA • FP) 22:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quite aware of this. There are lots of pictures in the article including the current FP in the lead and this one further down. I'm responding to Dusty's comment that if this one is FP the other needs to go. And I don't support this one for the lead in the article, because it is not the classic view (albeit a valuable one). Colin°^Talk 07:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colin, "same subject" and "similar view" are different. Please read (and participate in) the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Similar_featured_pictures. We can't encourage "adding/keeping instead of replacing the existing one" just for the sake of an additional FP. I can't see much difference between the "view from south" and "view from west" because of the shape of the building. Jkadavoor (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • • It is a similar issue but I think the editorial decision over what images to include in the article belongs with the article writers, not FP and ultimately (should there be dispute) not with the image creator (who is naturally biased). Colin°^Talk 07:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes; but unfortunately I can't see much involvement of the article writers in most cases. They rarely know when an image is replaced. Most nominations here are from the photographers who placed the image in the article just a week before. I know there are exceptions (like Tomer) and highly appreciating them. (I made a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects regarding the importance of participation of subject experts here; but no results. I think they ignore this as a childish activity; because most promotions are not with proper review by them. They sometimes remove FPs from the article pages because of the same conflicting reasons.) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense but you need to study images carefully before commenting. The view from the south shows all four minarets at once and the gardens before the Taj. The view from the west shows two minarets and the howz. I see EV in both the views --Muhammad(talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded --Muhammad(talk) 20:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Great picture which I supported at Commons, but the Taj Mahal is not something significantly different enough during sunset to have two different FPs IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned before, this shows some different aspect of the Taj. Nonetheless, the current FP is of considerably inferior quality and composition than this one --Muhammad(talk) 16:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't notice the different perspective, so support edit1. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 As it resolves the original concern and is of a different perspective than the current FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1 I'm glad to see this coming back. I don't think that the edit is perfect but I think it's better, and we can always do a D&R later if something better comes along. I think this photo has enough factors in its favor to support. --Pine^✉ 17:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Taj Mahal Sunset Edit1.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2012 at 06:32:39 (UTC)

Reason

Great portrait, high quality, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Annkathrin Kammeyer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Peter Weis

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice portrait and good EV.  ■ MMXX ^talk 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just a bland headshot... — raekyt 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice portrait IMO - bland but very encyclopaedic and of an interesting subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent portrait. Colin°^Talk 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: While this is a very good portrait, it does not appear to be significantly better than other portraits I've seen on Wikipedia. The article this image is associated with is stub-class and, although the image makes the article look better, the article does not carry enough weight on it's own to add any significant meaning or value to the image that is not already present.16bitz 19:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm quite flabbergasted by the oppose comments here. Perhaps there's confusion with Commons where "wow" is part of the criteria? Or with FA where we discuss the article -- the strength of the article isn't important at FP. What do you expect from a portrait of a minor German politician? Should she pull a funny face? You aren't seeing the usual flaws of a portrait like bad choice of lens, or flash shadow on the wall, or harsh lighting, or dark under-eyes or neck, or red eyes, or a distracting background, or half of someone else's head cropped out, or the eyes not being in focus, or a hair sticking out their nose,... This is simply an extremely professionally-done portrait using top equipment by one of our top portrait photographers. It is very high resolution 18MP and a licence as free as the wind. Please review some more portraits on Wikipedia that aren't FPs (try randomly clicking on a category of minor politicians, say). The EV of this photograph is without question -- it doesn't merely "make the article look better". A quality portrait is vital to a bio article and this fits that bill. I really don't see how you can say the article isn't more valuable because of the presence of the image. Do you think all bio articles should be plain text or need to show some kind of action shot or wearing a costume? If this doesn't cross the bar for an FP portrait then I really don't understand the criteria. Colin°^Talk 20:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1. Tomer T (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I firmly believe that every article on wikipedia COULD have a Featured Picture associated with it, so don't get me wrong here. I just don't think that official portraits are exactly "our best work" when it comes to pictures. We've promoted a few of them, but the VAST MAJORITY of images like this do not get passed, and I can't see why this would be any different. It's basically just a head-shot, with a plain white background, of a girl giving a weird smile and that's all you have. Sure it has extremely high EV, but it's just simply not the best work we could do. Maybe a shot of her actually doing something, in the legislator hall, or shaking the hand of someone, or talking, or giving a speech, or something other than doing nothing staring at the camera. There's a million ways you can make highly visually interesting portraits of political figures, and this definitely is not one of those ways. — raekyt 01:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you've ignored all the FP criteral where this excels and it comes down to your personal taste in images for bio articles. Politician shaking hands? Come on. That's a cliche. Politician making speech. Another cliche. Politician talking -- maybe for video for but for photographs the risk of an odd facial expression is high. So, no, I'm not really convinced there are a "million ways you can make highly visually interesting portraits of political figures". There's a reason why a classic portrait is the most common shot. There's nothing distracting going on. The lighting can be controlled. The image can be high resolution relatively close up. For the lead picture in a bio article, this sort of picture is absolutely head and shoulders (:-)) above any other pose or situation. You can vote on taste, of course, but that's a factor that needs weighed against the other qualities, which are all exceptional. To me it seems to make about as much sense as opposing JJ Harrison's bird photos because you're sick of the sea as a background and or flying as a pose. Bird photos generally don't float my boat, but I wouldn't oppose based on that. And we may well get "official portraits" nominated at FP, but most are small web-quality shots. And this isn't some official government photo shoot but was taken by one of our own users. Decent portraits taken by a Wikipedian... they're as rare as hens teeth. Colin°^Talk 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no comparison between a bird in it's natural habitat and a awkward head-shot of a politician... Here is a political ad for her, as you can see she has a FAR more natural smile then this picture, where she has some awkward smirk. Or here where she has again, a more natural smile and a non-plain white background. Or here where she is in her "natural environment" like the bird pictures you hate. Although that's not the best quality, but it illustrates the point. I'm not throwing away any criteria, and personal likes/dislikes are a valid reason for opposing... The biggest problem is the mid-sentence smirk on her face that is definitely not as natural of a smile as the others, that and there's clearly better that can exist of her. This isn't the best, shes young and recently elected, plenty more can potentially exist that will be better, why compromise now for this picture? — raekyt 14:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The bird comparison was merely that taste should be considered only one aspect of one's support or oppose, and possibly overridden if other aspects are exemplary. I don't hate bird pictures but they are just as samey as the politician official portraits you dislike. Yet we have hundreds of FP birds and only a handful of FP politicians (many dead) There are reasons for the limited style and range of a bird photo just as there are reasons that politicians are careful about their appearance in photographs. The other reasons you give now for opposing are getting to be more like a proper review and one I could disagree with yet respect. Btw, there is another shot of her File:Annkathrin Kammeyer IMG 6463 edit.jpg. My main issue is with "Just a bland headshot" as a reason for oppose. It is just as bad me saying "Just another bird on sea shot". Well I give you File:Sharbat Gula.jpg. I suspect some here would regard that as just another bland headshot too :-) Colin°^Talk
          • There is a VAST difference between File:Sharbat Gula.jpg and this picture, File:Sharbat Gula.jpg is NOT bland, and an extremely haunting portrait, and doesn't come off as bland in any way. There's emotion, there's hardship, there's sadness in those eyes, and but the nominated picture here, isn't any of that and to me is just "another headshot." As for File:Annkathrin_Kammeyer_IMG_6463_edit.jpg there's clear reasons why that isn't our best work. — raekyt 16:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Well I give you File:Sharbat Gula.jpg. I suspect some here would regard that as just another bland headshot too :-)" (I'm going to ignore the horrifying possibility that FP seems to have now got its own Godwin's Law). Who are they, Colin? Could they possibly be those who oppose this photo for FP? You'd already tried to ridicule them with your 'flabbergasted' suppositions and accusations; that didn't seem to work, so why not imagine something especially insulting? Your partiality and need to see this image make FP has gone beyond support and efforts at persuasion and the drama you are dealing out is making a mockery of this process. Do you behave like this every time you're disagreed with? Or is there some especial reason why objectivity seems to have been replaced with borderline hysteria? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Calling my response "passionate" is reasonable, but "borderline hysteria"? I think you are perhaps guilty yourself of hyperbole wrt to the opposing side and becoming insulting and should consider retracting those comments. Can we stick to discussing the picture and how to review it? Perhaps you think FPC should just be a vote or a series of "+1"s? My style is to discuss images rather than just vote and walk away. If we just did that, the process would indeed be dull and no-one would learn anything, myself included. Far from being a "mockery", whatever you mean by that, this sort of discussion is how FPC develops its standards and consensus. I chose that image simply as a counter to Raeky's preference for an image where the person does "something other than doing nothing staring at the camera", along with a sequence of clichéd alternatives. So Annkathrin doesn't have haunting eyes therefore she must do a dance for the camera in order not to be "bland". We're simply having a discussion about how to rate portraits. I think we have very conflicting standards when compared to other things like birds or objects. This is reflecting in the bias in our FP collections. Colin°^Talk 17:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • This isn't something new, if you go through the archives you'll find TOOOONS of political headshots that have failed, they almost always do, many far more interesting and less bland than this one. — raekyt 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've gone through the archives. Yes there are a couple of people like yourself who complain about boring headshots. They are in the minority. Most appreciate the EV for a politician (most of whom are plain and have awkward smiles). For people in other professions, a different kind of picture may be more appropriate. Good political pictures are indeed rare (even official ones are often crap) and it is very hard to get access for a Wikipedian to take a free picture, as is the case here. Generally, reasons for oppose come for images that deviate from a studio headshot, leading to a cluttered image and distracting elements, or where the quality of the image just isn't that great. Those don't apply here. Colin°^Talk 09:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • • I retract nothing, Colin. Your escalating imaginary suppositions just prove my point more, especially as you now admit you're doing this to make a WP:POINT: "I chose that image simply as a counter to Raeky's preference..." Plutonium27 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Eh? I haven't admitted any such thing. You're seeing what you want to see. You know, the Godwin's law aspect of an FPC dicussion is that when folk start discussing other reviewers, rather than the text and how to reviewing, then they have lost the argument and it is time to stop. Goodbye. Colin°^Talk 11:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support excellent portrait for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2012

(UTC)

• Oppose As Colin says in his passionate support (above): "This is simply an extremely professionally-done portrait using top equipment by one of our top portrait photographers." It is good quality - no argument there. But that is simply all it is. I can't see where it fulfills the FP criteria: it has nothing that can objectively be claimed to be of exceptional interest or value, not in the photo, the subject nor the context. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I find a 21 year old getting herself elected to Parliament quite notable. Thus an excellent picture of her has merit. I also find the discrimination given humans suspect when we routinely FP toasters and irons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And only 22 now? I'm tempted to support. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Saffron. (to make the vote more clear to understand) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Isn't stimulating my interest in the subject, sorry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well up to our usual standard for such subjects. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 01:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 09:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Annkathrin Kammeyer IMG 3337 edit.jpg --Julia\^talk 06:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2012 at 17:54:14 (UTC)

Reason

A little unsharp, but very good representative picture of Ermoupolis, with high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Ermoupolis, Syros, Culture of Greece

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Hpschaefer

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's nice... But is it FP worthy? The un-sharpness is off-putting, although not critical... But the fact that buildings are cut off at both sides makes we want to see a wider shot, or a stitched panorama showing the full sweep of the coastline... This just seems a little "snapshotty", rather than a quality picture... Lacking in Wow-factor for me sorry... gazhiley 08:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per gaz, and it's a bit soft. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2012 at 12:06:18 (UTC)

Reason

A very rare early bible(published 1572) which are not normally accessable to the public, even then photography is generally prohibited

Articles in which this image appears

Plantin Polyglot

FP category for this image

Culture

Creator

Gnangarra

• Support as nominator --Gnangarra 12:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A rare book, but there are issues with lighting and the angle of the photo. Spencer^T♦C 20:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, because, even if this isn't great (remember the Pieta a few weeks ago?), it's as good as an image of this Bible is ever going to get, as the photograph can not be retaken. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't it be retaken? There are several copies of this Bible in existence, some at universities. I don't imagine it would be that difficult to get access to at least one of them. Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The rarity doesn't compensate for the low quality. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2012 at 02:38:57 (UTC)

Reason

IQ and high EV given the relatively unphotographed nature of this animal. This image is failed by criteria 2, being of low resolution, however given its exceptional quality I believe that if it was upsampled to meet the requirements it would still pass: the image has a far higher "spatial resolution" than actual resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Rattus villosissimus

FP category for this image

animals

Creator

Benjamint 02:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Benjamint 02:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Well below the minimum size requirements. The criteria make it quite clear the nominator should explain why it would have been technically difficult to obtain a larger image. Since this animal was just released from captivity in front of the photographer, it is not obvious that a standard resolution picture couldn't have been obtained rather than this tiny 1.7MP web-sized image. For the record: I'm absolutely opposed to upsampling and would see its use to "meet the requirements" as gaming the system. I'd much rather be convinced that this is be best size reasonably achievable. Colin°^Talk 08:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my head the bag behind it looks like the rat has just parachuted in, Felix style! hehe (yes I'm exceedingly bored right now) gazhiley 09:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose btw - as the nom itself states - it doesn't meet criteria... gazhiley 09:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not convinced that these new and controversial criteria are serving us particularly well. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody dies if a valuable and technically adequate picture fails to achieve FA. There's a good deal of arbitrariness about the system. Witness the bizarre oppose votes on the superb portrait elsewhere on this page. If you took those opinions here, we'd have folk opposing for the "bland side profile". Well, I don't agree with the notion that a half-decent picture of a wild animal entitles one to a position at FP regardless of what size it gets uploaded at. It is valuable for a thumbnail on Wikipedia. But what is featurable about this? Colin°^Talk 17:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Will consider for a review on next week (criteria 5). :) Jkadavoor (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had no picture so the 7-day rule can be waived per criteria 5. You may !vote now! Colin°^Talk 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intention is not to game the system, the moral of these nominations is that the system is supporting an arbitrary standard, as you said yourself. Hence the upsampling. If I understand your comment above correctly, to you arbitrary oppose votes justifies an arbitrary system? To me arbitrary votes show the system needs tweaking! To be clear I'm not saying there are mitigating circumstances for low res, I'm saying it's not low res. Benjamint 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The voting criteria here are the result of consensus discussions among folk with quite different tastes and opinions over what makes an FP for Wikipedia. One person's "bland portrait" is another's exemplary work. What one regards as an arbitrary threshold set too low, another might consider to high. What one regards as an over complex set of rules, another regards as not being specific enough. We can't please everyone. Nor can we fully understand why some folk support mediocre images and oppose brilliant ones. If we all thought the same way we wouldn't need to collect the votes and weigh them: one reviewer would be sufficient. We have a size threshold for FP. That's the rules of the game. If you want to play, upload pictures above the threshold or explain why it wasn't possible. It is not hard, but may mean you have pictures you think are great that can't be nominated. Well that's life and nobody died. I'm utterly opposed to upsampling. It doesn't make Wikipedia better: the picture isn't improved, the filesize is increased, the download time increased. As I said on the other nomination, image size is a surrogate measure for detail resolved/retained. It isn't perfect but has consensus support as a reasonably easy to use criteria. Colin°^Talk 08:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you really interested to tweak the system (I don't think so), a look here may also worth. (@Colin: But what I should do if somebody remove this picture from the article within this week. (Seven days is not a big thing to test the stability though.) Jkadavoor (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only valid reason someone would have to remove this image from the article, would be that they disputed that that this was in fact a long haired rat. Or supplied a better one (but that could happen any time). Colin°^Talk 08:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as the upsampled version is no longer sharp. @Colin: Regarding the arguments about upsampling (making it 2 MP) or downsampling (increasing apparent sharpness) to "game the system": who cares? Just to be clear, I also oppose any such manipulation, and I believe everything should be presented at original size. But ultimately, come review time, I view everything in a resized resolution, and expect the image to either be perfect at 2 MP or decently sharp at 5 MP regardless of its nominal resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already stated above why upsampling is harmful and pointless gaming. It matters to our readers, which is what ultimately matters, not some little bronze star. Let's be clear: if someone upsampled pictures in order to get them to pass the FP criteria, I'd go to ANI to have them blocked. And we don't need "here's what it looks like upsampled" samples posted alongside FP nominations: I'm perfectly capable of doing this myself should I care to. This arguing over the threshold is just wasting everyone's time, which is what the simple criteria threshold is designed to avoid. Nominators would do well to accept the rules of the game and accept there's an element of chance involved: win some lose some. We aren't deciding how best to distribute food parcels in a famine... Colin°^Talk 12:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I know you're not joking this time; I still think you must only be contributing here for Comic Relief though Colin. It's the only explanation. --benjamint 14:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you; I'm just belaboring a technicality. Fortunately upsampling is not a major problem (this is the first or second time I've seen someone do this an either en or Commons FP), but downsampling... people seem to think it improves sharpness while all it does is discard information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Resolution too low for a relatively common animal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2012 at 18:16:59 (UTC)

Reason

Very High Quality Photo and Good Framing, also featured picture in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Yazd

FP category for this image

Creator

Ggia

• Support as nominator --Mahan (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Surely better angles exist for this building, the angle shot over other buildings makes it look very cluttered and obscures the majority of the building. — raekyt 20:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question As per similar recent noms, is the scaffolding a permanant fixture? If not then we should really wait until a picture is available without the scaffolding to nominate that... gazhiley 08:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my recent visit to Iran, most of the monuments had some scaffolding. I was told that repairs always go on and one thing or the other will be under repairs. --Muhammad(talk) 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Muhammad... I think I am going to have to Oppose though as the way I read your response is that although there is always something being repaired, this building isn't always being repaired, ergo I suggest a new picture attempt once this scaffolding is gone... Not knowing the building I can't really comment on — raeky's opinion about the view other than to agree that you can't really see much of this building in this nom... gazhiley 10:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I misguided you. I meant the complex/building will always have such distractions as something or the other will always be under repair--Muhammad(talk) 15:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Raeky and also re the scaffolding - its worth waiting for the scaffolding to be removed and trying for a shot then. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportThis is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons.Alborzagros (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose because in the current version of the article this image isn't providing an abundance of EV. I could support it if the picture was better used in this or some other article. --Pine^✉ 17:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportThe quality is amazing, and featured picture on Wikimedia Commons--:)Mahdi ^talk 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The focal point of the image isn't clear, doesn't shout FP to me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2012 at 06:46:47 (UTC)

Reason

A breathtaking view of some of the oldest galaxies in the Universe. Good quality and difficult to recreate.

Articles in which this image appears

Hubble Extreme Deep Field, Hubble Ultra-Deep Field, Astronomy

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA; ESA; G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch, University of California, Santa Cruz; R. Bouwens, Leiden University; and the HUDF09 Team

• Support as nominator --EngineerFromVega^★ 06:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very important image scientifically, a true accomplishment. — raekyt 20:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not convert this to JPEG or at least PNG? Having articles link to TIFs, which require an external viewer, is not very reader-friendly. Chick Bowen 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no policy reason why you'd need to use one format over another. — raekyt 01:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded a PNG version as an alternative. Please take a look. I've used OS X Preview app to convert from TIFF to PNG. EngineerFromVega^★ 04:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing you need to know about formats, since you suggested JPEG, is that TIFF and PNG are lossless formats, whereas JPEG is lossy, you'd NEVER want to prefer a JPEG over a TIFF/PNG. Secondly for publishing TIFF would be preferred format. — raekyt 15:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: A remarkable shot - a technical accomplishment in itself - and of great scientific importance and much public interest (its release saw it featured on the front pages of many media). Plutonium27 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re format - pref. alt version. The most important thing is quality and I cannot see a difference in the two versions here. TIF has its advantages but the opening external viewer requirement is a bit of a pain. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Woooooo! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pine^✉ 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hubble Extreme Deep Field (full resolution).png --Julia\^talk 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2012 at 18:50:07 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and good quality depiction of a poorly known but amazingly beautiful set of stained glass windows

Articles in which this image appears

Jean-Baptiste Capronnier, St. Michael and St. Gudula Cathedral

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Loads of detail to explore and free of vertical perspective distortion. I assume these are three separate images joined together. If so, could you tweak the vertical position of each so they line up? -- Colin°^Talk 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is there a sharpness variation (due to F4)? The center scene seems very sharp. Jkadavoor (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very bold high resolution image displaying exquisite detail of the subject 16bitz 15:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yeah! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good Lemon martini (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose good size and EV, but this should be sharper if it's to be listed as an FP. --Pine^✉ 01:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks sharp to me and good EV. Spongie555 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bruxels April 2012-11a.jpg --Julia\^talk 05:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2012 at 15:27:03 (UTC)

Reason

it is a gorgeous photograph that shows the colorful dress of Hutterite women in their natural environment

Articles in which this image appears

Hutterite

FP category for this image

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 filesSelf-published work

Creator

User: Raynardo

• Support as nominator --Raynardo (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This photo fails criterion 2, since the height of 1416 pixels is below the 1500 minimum. Chris857 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I guess this does add a little EV in its current placement, and the photo has aesthetic quality, but the EV isn't as high as what I normally expect for an FP. Being a few pixels short of 1500 is ok with me especially when the long side is longer than 1500. I think this would be more likely to get VP or FP on Commons. --Pine^✉ 03:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2012 at 04:40:32 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, Much EV, Very Unique and Eye-catching. This photo is being featured in Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Eiffel Tower

FP category for this image

Creator

Jebulon

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Not sure about its EV. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unfortunately, views like this are dramatic but not very encyclopedic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low ev with current usage in the article. Spencer^T♦C 06:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2012 at 09:45:46 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Notre-Dame Cathedral, Luxembourg, Roman Catholic Marian churches

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

Benh

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The central part is a bit unclear and too light. Harsh reflections are visible particularly on the icon and the altar. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Very good, but some pixel-level CA, please fix. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how... Tomer T (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per King of Hearts Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 10:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2012 at 01:07:35 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, composition and most of all EV

Articles in which this image appears

Chhota Imambara, Awadh, Tourism in Uttar Pradesh

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 01:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only good image available to well describe the subject. Jkadavoor (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clear, good quality, illustrative. Tomer T (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support presuming someone crops out the red line along the top-right of the photo. upstateNYer 18:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done --Muhammad(talk) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks great! :) upstateNYer 02:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 10:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment GFDL only is hardly ideal.©Geni 06:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Spongie555 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Pine^✉ 23:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chhota imambara Lucknow.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2012 at 05:51:59 (UTC)

Reason

Has a free license, good resolution, a good view of the architecture, has EV

Articles in which this image appears

Autism Awareness Campaign UK, British Pakistanis, City of Westminster, List of World Heritage Sites in Western Europe, List of legislative assembly buildings, Palace of Westminster

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Mgimelfarb

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 05:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pleasant enough at thumbnail (though the boardings along the bridge are distracting). But the limitations of ISO 1000 on a six-year-old camera are really apparent: the quality just isn't there. Even downsampled half size it lacks resolution and range. Colin°^Talk 07:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • on a six-year-old camera - Colin, can you please stop this rhetoric? This is not a camera sales site. Critique the picture, not the camera. Cheers. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't understand this. Perhaps someone who hasn't got it in for me can explain? It is a photograph whose main problem is dreadful noise and the hefty reduction thereof. The reasons for that are as I gave and nothing else: the technological limitations of the hardware. Just as someone might say: the background is distracting due to the smaller aperture or the subject isn't sharp due to the low shutter speed. But Samsara, I note you haven't commented on the picture at all. I'm getting sick of this. Colin°^Talk 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, I note that you continue in your ad hominems. It has no place here. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Funny that someone who gives valid reasons for opposing gets criticized by another who... doesn't even talk photo here. You have no place here I'd say. - Blieusong (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are prey to the same fallacy. The camera model has nothing to do with it. We generally talk about image quality, and that's the only relevant criterion. WP:WIAFP for your reading if you need a refresher. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The technical quality of the image (WIAFP1) is directly affected by the type of camera one uses. Perhaps Colin should have focused less on the camera technology but his concern's about the image quality ("lacks resolution") are affected by the camera that the photographer used (and he was giving helpful advice on how to improve the issue that he mentioned). Spencer^T♦C 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • May I just point out that only 15 of the 42 words Colin typed were about the camera quality - and even then after the colon he gave the reason why he mentioned the camera... Ie the quality just isn't there... That hardly means he's focused on the camera model! There aren't enough editors on this page as it is, let's not put people off providing their opinions and expertise by attacking them... gazhiley 22:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • (and for a hugely famous and easily reproduced view such as this, it's reasonable to take camera quality into account as one factor when considering the nomination) Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Image quality, yes. Camera model, no. I'm surprised so many of you aren't getting this. Wikipedia is not a soap box for Colin's bashing of camera models, which he's repeatedly used it for. We're here to critique pictures. Enough is enough. Please stop it, it doesn't belong here. End of debate? Samsara (FA • FP) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • A debate? Hardly. Colin is right, the lack of image quality is directly attributible to the camera used in this case. Would I have mentioned this? Probably not because I know how touchy people are about their cameras. Moreover, I see no history of camera elitism from Colin or anyone else for that matter. Samsara is a lovely parfum, but what you did here stinks. 131.137.245.206 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • End of debate, yes, but let me just say this. You may have noticed on numerous occasions that almost everyone has disagreed with you about 'what FPC is'. You regularly come in here and tell us how it should be done, using a rather rude tone. How about you just critique the photo the way you want to, and let others critique it the way they want to. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Now let's just recap there. We've established that the comment Colin made above was unnecessary and unhelpful. You then come along and, in an attempt of personal point-scoring, try to lecture on topics that your own record does not bear out. I hope we're done now. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I don't think we've established that at all. Other people would have put it differently because, well, because they are other people. I reviewed the picture, not the camera. I mentioned the cause of the image failure (the ISO choice + camera age) just as someone might mention any other cause of image failure such as shutter speed choice, aperture choice, focal length choice, weather conditions, crop, stitched-image projection, etc, etc. Such comments aren't, if we're being picky about language, actually "necessary" but are utterly harmless. If as the IP says some people are "touchy" about their cameras, well that's their problem and certainly not mine, nor am I going to censor myself to accommodate their problem. Is King of Hearts review an example of tripod elitism perhaps? I'm personally ashamed of my tripod and am reluctant to show it in public. When I asked for an impartial third opinion (which is my right) you accuse me of making ad hominem attacks (as though the mere act of doubting your opinion is offensive).

Where does this "soap box for Colin's bashing of camera models" comment come from? There is no evidence for this in my reviews on Wikipedia or Commons. Such comments are blockably in violation of our no personal attacks policy. If folk have some comment to make to me, or advice, then use my talk page or send me an email. This forum should for reviewing images, and for discussing how to review them without getting personal.

If one cannot make a straightforward review like I did above, without being subject to vitriol, then I can see no merit in me continuing to participate here. Colin°^Talk 09:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very little of what is placed in a review is "necessary". Just because it is not necessary doesn't mean it is "unhelpful". Noting that the camera was six years old was actually elightening and explained why the settings used resulted in such a poor picture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Colin's intention was to say that the high ISO performance of old generation cameras are not as good as that of the new ones. Please leave that topic for our own good (please). JKadavoor Jee 13:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As mentioned by others already, 'we' did not establish any such things about Colin's comments - only you attempted to do so, and were rejected by everyone else. For the sake of everyone's patience, Samsara, please just judge the photos and keep your opinions on others to yourself. Only then will we be done. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Noisy (per Colin). And it's likely issue could have been avoided with proper settings (maybe opening a bit more, and longer exposure). - Blieusong (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice lighting, but should have used a tripod. Or, this were shot at 1/50s and f/8, the ISO could have been brought down to 200. Worried about blur? Just hold the shutter down ten times and you're guaranteed to get one that's sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice colors but clarity is lacking especially when viewed at 100%. --Pine^✉ 03:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2012 at 17:11:52 (UTC)

Reason

Good resolution, high quality, high EV - important painting

Articles in which this image appears

Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway, J. M. W. Turner, Maidenhead Railway Bridge, Maidenhead, 1844 in art, Great Western Railway, Collection of the National Gallery, London, River Thames, History of Spain (1814–1873)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

J. M. W. Turner

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 2. Tomer T (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't see any issues. Looks pretty good, even though it's hard to distinguish anything. Dusty777 17:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]
• Oppose Colors appear to be drastically wrong, someone tried to correct it with a much larger version but it got reverted. The image on the museum's website ([9]) and a video of the painting ([10]) show clearly different colors than this image has. — raekyt 15:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoah! Those colors were drastically altered. I'm going to withdraw my vote for the time being. Dusty777 21:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added the other version as alt. Tomer T (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I recall, the alt submission is closer to the correct colours. But I may have been looking at it through rose-tinted spectacles. Yomangani^talk 23:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt Per Raeky. Dusty777 01:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What happened with the colours? They're very different from each other now-which one is the 'proper' version? Lemon martini (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above discussion. Tomer T (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A bit off topic, but where the hell is the hare that's running in front of the train? I can't see it for the life of me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually me too. But I don't think that related to the image's authencity or something like that. Tomer T (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't see anything talking about a hare, but this looks like the hare to me. :P — raekyt 20:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's in the article: "A tiny hare appears in the bottom right corner of the painting". Tomer T (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then what I linked is probably it. — raekyt 20:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both until people can sort out the correct colors. The National Gallery has yet a different color scheme. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree, the alt is different then the museum's picture of it, which I would be more inclined to believe. — raekyt 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I uploaded the National Gallery version as Alt 2. Please note, the file information for "Alt 1" also says that file came from the National Gallery, with the same URL, four days ago. Hmm... There are now six versions in the Commons category for this painting to choose from... To me, Alt 2 is most consistent with what most repros of Turner paintings look like. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll Support alt2. — raekyt 19:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say Alt2 is most realistic, from memory of the original. Going round any museum, even the National Gallery, with their own reproductions in hand is always a hair-raising experience though. The "original" version gives the NG as source, but when first added, in 2006, gave the appalling artrenewal site as source, though the exact link http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/image.asp?id=14508&hires=1 no longer works. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alt 2 is the most accurate of the lot (as you'd imagine, coming from the Gallery's website). Textbook example 1 Textbook example 2 czar · · 00:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt-2 Per above. Dusty777 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This should perhaps be reopened, since Alt 2, which is a significant improvement, came in late. Chick Bowen 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Or closed as not promoted and Alt 2 separately renominated. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 06:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-nominate Alt 2 separately if so desired. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]