Comment – This looks oversharpened and overprocessed. It's visually interesting but it looks unnatural to me, particularly the lighting (rendering) of the tree trunk and branches under the canopy. Bammesk (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looking at the head, this image appears to be out of focus, and there appears to be some strange noise on the image. Weird for one of JJ's pictures. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2024 at 15:59:34 (UTC)
Reason
Animated vision of light wave separation in a prism, as made famous by Pink Floyd. Assessed as a Quality Image on Commons and featured there as media of the day.
It isn't misleading. It's accurate. The fact that higher frequencies travel through more cycles, in a given time span, does not mean (or imply) that they move slower. In air all frequencies are moving at the same speed. In the prism the higher frequencies are moving slightly slower, as they should (in this case 25% slower). Also the relations between frequencies, speeds and angles of deflection are proper. Bammesk (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2024 at 16:05:25 (UTC)
Reason
Close-up detail of the faravahar, an important symbol in Zoroastrianism, as it appears on the Fire Temple of Yazd. I think the image is technically quite good, I like that this example has color (a lot of the other examples on the faravahar page are simply hewn from unadorned stone), and the mild shadows bring out the relief. Rated a Quality Image on Commons.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2024 at 12:00:34 (UTC)
Reason
Wikipedia's most extensive, comprehensive, readable and source accurate diagram presenting the division of elves in the world created by Tolkien. The svg format provides lossless scaling. This image has also previously been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.
The divisions of elves in Tolkien's works are a very complex matter. This diagram organizes practically all the knowledge in this area and presents it in the most accessible way possible. Agnaton (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Sca - This certainly has value in the articles, but I can't imagine it as a FP on the main page... (FYI I've read LOTR five times, so I'm kind of a fan, but this is just too much...) --Janke | Talk13:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's too soon to nominate this image. The image was added to The article a few days ago. There is currently a discussion about the image on the article's talk page. The image should be renominated at a later time, after there is no longer a discussion about it, and once the image is stable in the article for 7+ days (per FP criterion #5), preferably longer in my opinion. Bammesk (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the nominator, image use in non-English Wiki articles is not relevant. I suggest removing those entries from the list above, to declutter. Bammesk (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen years later, this still has educational and historical values, that's the point. That's not the case for most White House pictures. Yann (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm torn on this. I think this is an important event and the photo captures the important aspects of it, but the framing is off-center and the focus was made on Obama, so the women behind him are slightly blurry. Is there any chance this is one from a set of images taken by White House press? Perhaps there are others we could choose from. Moonreach (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – semi-historic, this is their first arrival to the U.S. (New York City JFK airport). Merits taking an exception for the technical issues. I don't think we have any FPs of them. Bammesk (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And am I really the only one who sees the technical flaws? Look at the man in the fedora (second row, second from right) in full magnification. There's pronounced horizontal banding in the dark areas of his suit, and if you look at his lips and the brim of his hat you can see individual rows of pixels. These things pop up in detail areas all over the picture. I think this image was enlarged to its current size from a smaller copy at some point. Moonreach (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2024 at 16:54:04 (UTC)
Reason
high quality portrait. "Pope John XXIII surprised those who expected him to be a caretaker pope by calling the historic Second Vatican Council." "The council had a significant impact on the Church due to the scope and variety of issues it addressed."
Comment — I put it into Krita and checked the levels; they're not fully blown out. There is forehead detail in there, although it didn't look particularly great when I crushed the levels down enough to find it. I'd support an alt that balances things a bit better. Moonreach (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I messed with this in Photoshop last night, and unfortunately his face falls within the highlight range, so fixing the shine also makes the rest of him look like Lurch. Doing a localized adjustment was somewhat better, but it still ended up looking more grey than recovering detail. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Crop is quite close for a 3/4 portrait; generally, these are given more space to breathe. I've made a crop that I think works a bit better, though part of me wants to reduce the aspect ratio somewhat. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this is a particularly good photo; it cuts off in a weird place that shows all of his torso but nothing below it, and he's leaning out of the frame. Chris's crop is better on technical merits but I still don't see anything that makes me think it's among Wikipedia's best images. Moonreach (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a crop and a restoration (and to actually be used somewhere on the English Wikipedia), but otherwise I'd support that one if you want to nominate it. A great encapsulation of an artist and her work. Moonreach (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per Charles. Plus, PNG suffers from a software glitch where the Wiki fails to sharpen after downsizing, which is a shame given the beautiful plumage. (That being said, kudos to Chuck for providing original resolution images in a lossless format... it really future-proofs the media). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2024 at 20:23:05 (UTC)
Reason
This is a delisted featured image because the original scan a while ago was low quality. However, there is a way higher quality image in it's place now. Anyway, the poster is historically significant and very famous
Support – Unusually for me, I support this offcl pol pic because for once the detail of this 80-year-old image is pretty good – and because of the subject's overarching historical EV. Plus, it's a face full of character. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2024 at 23:33:40 (UTC)
Reason
The Hindenberg Disaster abruptly ended an era in which airships were very popular, as is known as one of the most famous aviation accidents. These images showed people that airships are dangerous. It is just like the "Oh, the humanity" quote about the disaster, a pretty important piece of media.
Oppose – As said six months ago, this photo has been reproduced countless times ... becoming effectively a bromide (in journalism, a cliché). – Sca (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2024 at 18:52:42 (UTC)
Reason
Well-composed, high-detail shot of the long-in-the-making Ryugyong Hotel. It was still under construction when this was taken, but the facade was complete.
Support - Technical quality is rough, but given the difficulty of getting people into North Korea and the never-ending construction this hotel has gone through, it has a timeless quality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2024 at 19:33:32 (UTC)
Reason
I think this is a good exemplar of many of the aspects of pixel art: A limited color palette, the use of complementary colors to create the illusion of a gradient, places where emphasis is placed on individual pixels (such as highlights and the border) and places where a blended effect is desired (the beard and the tones of the face). The one thing it doesn't have that I wish it did is dithering in the gradient areas, but that's not a mandatory aspect of the medium.
That was actually my first choice, but I decided against it for a few reasons. The color selection (not just the palette but the full gamut it implies) is mostly browns and blues, there's not much to indicate how shadows are represented, and there are large areas of flat color. I also dislike the inset detail box, which is just under a 2x magnification and therefore just browbeats the viewer with information they already have. So I went through Commons, found another piece of pixel art I felt illustrated the concept better, added it to the page and waited a week. Moonreach (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I still feel that the cat is more encyclopedic, Adam is right that this does strongly resemble something one would find in the (late) 90s. Given that that's the aesthetic modern pixel art games go for, I'm happy supporting. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multiple creases on the poster, plus lots of macroblocking in the image (note the patterns around the letters in the cast list, or the rainbow square patterns that show up in the light sections of Welles's hair). hinnk (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 15:41:56 (UTC)
Reason
Official White House presidential portrait of US President Thomas Jefferson. A prior nomination for this painting failed, but that one was an attempt to promote a lower-resolution image that didn't make the 1500px cutoff.
Comment – I like this image a lot, but there's a fair amount of water spotting in the upper left corner, particularly in the sky. There's also a vertical band of lighter color about a quarter of the way in from the left side, and it runs all the way from top to bottom. Moonreach (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 00:25:13 (UTC)
Reason
It is a very high quality image, and it is accurate too. It shows three of the Mozart's (Wolfgang Amadeus, Maria Anna, and Leopold) during their lifetime, along with a portrait of their dead mother, Anna Maria. It may have one of the best depictions of the best composers and the rest of his family
Comment – Wcamp9 you uploaded this image a few days ago, what is the source link? The source link should be in the file page. This image is not in the last two articles you listed above, so I struck those articles. Bammesk (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator I have been looking for some time for a good copy. At least I found an acceptable one. Seeing the price of a print, I don't think some contributor could get one and scan it. – Yann (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 00:50:12 (UTC)
Reason
Probably the most high-quality image of Mercury, in which he is performing live in one of his famous flambouyant outfits in 1977. This is one of the best images of Mercury (once nominated 14 years ago but not promoted). I believe this is an interesting photo, which really captures Mercury's well-known energy in his concerts
Comment – I'm okay with overlooking the darkness, given that this kind of environment is where Mercury made most of his public appearances, but it seems like no part of the image is fully in focus. But for that, I'd support; it's a very dynamic photo and the scan quality is high enough to get the film grain. Moonreach (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given that this is an action shot from 1977, taken in low quality lighting, with what had to have been high speed film... Yes, it's out of focus - I'm thinking, based on sharpness, this was a low F-number that ended up focusing on his crotch. It's also an excellent shot given the difficulties and technology of the time. (Heck, there are times when I can't even get that quality with newer tech). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've mulled it over some more and I say support. This photo has excellent composition. Its technical shortcomings are real, but Chris is right that they're minimal for the conditions the picture was taken in. I have myself shot film of performers in dark rooms, and there's real skill required to get something this good when you're dealing with a lot of movement in low light. The focus is a bit off, but only a bit, and this is a captured moment that won't come again. Moonreach (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 01:00:41 (UTC)
Reason
It shows one of the most influential and innovative people ever, Steve Jobs, with one of his greatest business achievements before he died. It is also a very high quality image of Jobs.
Oppose – Blurry up close and the screen of the iPhone is pretty washed out. I also feel like this is tantamount to advertising. While promotional aspects aren't in the featured picture criteria, I feel like that aspect works against criteria #3, that featured images be Wikipedia's best work. Moonreach (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – good EV in its article, well preserved, The scan resolution is 150 pixels per inch (per the scale on the map), and all is legible when enlarged (say at 200%). I updated the source links. Bammesk (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the other two maps. One of them is older, it dates to 1918. The settlement regime ended around 1942. The nominated map dates to approximately 1935 (per the map itself, although it's a 1945 print), so the nom map is the most recent of the three. I like the bilingual annotations on This map, but the problem I see is that its legends are in Chinese only (not readily legible in an en-Wiki article). Also the nom map is in the article since 2012, whereas the other two maps aren't. Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stability is a fair point, though given that the two I linked above were uploaded this year (though other versions saved at higher compression are older) it's to be expected. Hmmm... given the dynamic construction of Shanghai in the early 20th century, the seventeen years between the 1918 map and the 1935 map nominated here could be significant. Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 19:34:04 (UTC)
Reason
I saw this pop up in On This Day for Oct. 8 and think it's pretty good. This is a crop from this version, and I think an improvement, since the color plates didn't line up cleanly with the printed border. There's good detail in close up; what irregularities there are are aspects of the original print (that is, overprinting with successive color layers that often have hard edges). There is some mild browning on the paper itself, but the sepia tint to the bottom area is its own printed color, as is clear on the uncut version.
I'm not sure my !vote counts, but yes, I do think this is an extremely important historical image. There are so many equally impactful historical events where we don't have the benefit of a quality illustration. GMGtalk10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The border is part of a lithograph. They aren't meant to be artifically cropped. There may be cases for offering a cropped alternative, but the thin border this has really doesn't rise to that level. In my eyes, this changes it from historical artefact to bad textbook illustration. Also, Currier and Ives lithographs are hand-tinted, and this one seems rather slapdash. Compare https://oldprintshop.com/uploads/jpg/100018.jpg (from https://oldprintshop.com/product/163922?inventoryno=100018) Or [2] Or, hell [https://www.loc.gov/resource/pga.06548/ this copy of the same lithograph without all the weird streaking. Like, I get the fire colours are nice in this one, but there's major artistic flaws elsewhere. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.23:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 17:18:10 (UTC)
Reason
A high quality picture for 2001 (along with being one of the highest quality 9/11 pics on Wikipedia), which shows the explosion impact of the South Tower in great detail. I feel like this picture really shows a historical moment, in which many people realized that 9/11 was a terrorist attack and not just a result of an accidental plane crash. It shows everything from the blast to the smoke to the towers in good detail
Support. I see some dust and scratches, but for once I'd suggest against restoration (except maybe the scratches in the blue parts of the sky). The central event is an explosion with debris, and I worry an attempt to fix apparent scuffs might accidentally erase real information. Moonreach (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 19:32:53 (UTC)
Reason
Majestic shot of a weather event (its usage on the Phoenix, AZ page describes it as a simoom; the file name just calls it a dust storm) over a populated area. The one notable flaw I see is that the white section of sky on the right-hand side of the storm is fully blown out. I'll argue that that's acceptable because it's outside the area of interest, but I understand if that's a sticking point for others.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 14:57:24 (UTC)
Reason
Well-composed, highly detailed shot of an interesting ruin. This angle shows the surviving structure, the parts which have fallen, and modern stabilization efforts. The king whose tomb this is was poorly documented, and this is perhaps as good a representation of him as we can have.
I think it's misleading as to the nature of the photo to go greyscale, but at least the greyscale conversion is now done well. I personally think it's a very, very bad precedent, and I might go weak oppose, but I think it needs opposed. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.05:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As I said above, I disagree with indiscriminately converting each and every B&W photo to grayscale. You can see some of my thoughts Here. I think distinctions can be made for notable photos, photos by notable photographers, artistic photos, strictly historic photos, versus the more ordinary B&W photos, also distinctions can be made for prints and positive transparencies (i.e. fully processed works), versus negative films (i.e. not fully processed works). I think we can make grayscale (or other tonal) judgments on a case by case basis, and vote accordingly. Bammesk (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings. I do still like the current version and support it, but I feel like it would have been better to present the edits, particularly the switch to grayscale, as alts. If doing so is still an option, I would suggest running the first version that was nominated (21:06, 5 October 2024) against the current version (16:10, 13 October 2024) as an alt and ping everybody to choose between them. I don't think we all saw the same thing when we voted, and therefore it would be misleading to say the current image has a consensus of support. Moonreach (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If you follow the timeline, there were two pings, one for This version, and a second ping for This version (both grayscale versions). Even currently, everyone has the opportunity to revise, change, or keep their votes. Bammesk (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 18:55:58 (UTC)
Reason
Aguas Calientes (volcano) on the right side and Lascar (volcano) on the left side, with Lake Lejía in foreground, in northern Chile. The lake and the camera are at a distance of about 9 miles from the volcanoes. This is the second nomination. The first nomination received 4 support votes and no opposition.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 23:00:09 (UTC)
Reason
This high-quality and color image of 52nd Street from the 1940s (which is pretty rare), shows the city lights as they looked back in 1948. The quality of the kodachrome is also very impressive for it's time.
Oppose – I agree it's too dark. I prefer this B&W photo in the article. The B&W photo is too soft at full size, but its pixel count is high enough so it's sharp enough when viewed at 50% size (that could be a pass for older/historic photos IMO). Bammesk (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 15:41:00 (UTC)
Reason
Iconic photograph in solid reproduction and good restoration. One of Weston’s most famous photographs, also regarded a milestone in his artistic development.
Comment I think the description needs to note this is scanned from a Cole Weston print - in art photography my understanding is that the making of the print is part of the process (especially when it involves manual dodging and burning, as in this case), and Edward Weston also made prints of this negative before authorising his son Cole to make further prints. I'm also a little confused about the sourcing - the image page gives three URLs, which as far as I can see are for different prints of the image (thought all by Cole Weston), and isn't clear which one is actually the image uploaded. TSP (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent use of light, notable on its own right. @TSP, I've been able to confirm that this is from the Rago Arts link based on resolution pre- and post-crop. Yann, I'd also recommend making the source clearer, since it appears the other two sources are being used for supplemental information on the photograph/print. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of of Edward Weston's pictures available on the Internet, are prints made by his son. I understand that very few prints were made by Edward Weston himself. Information added. Yann (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)#[reply]
Comment: She is in a good pose; but, umm, her right shoulder is blurred, opaque. This may not be a weak point, esp. considering the photo's date (1936); we also see a well focus on most parts of the photo. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best copy available on the Internet. Seeing the price of a print, I don't think a contributor could get one and scan it. Yann (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't really like it as an image, either. I can't tell what I'm looking at; were this an image intended to illustrate the camera, rather than a piece of art in its own right, I would call it downright bad. That's just my personal taste, which of course isn't a criterion, but it does make me less willing to overlook technical shortcomings, which are. Moonreach (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm seeing a light patch on the left side of the image that is likely not in the original print. I agree that the technical quality is lacking; Christie's gives high resolution scans, but they save them at a high compression ratio, resulting in JPG artefacting (for example, I think File:Huang Shaoqiang - Farewell.jpg is an excellent example of the artist's work, but there are a few compression issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It would be nice if the article page, file page, or image caption(s) said what type of camera this is. Here are the camera info links: [3][4]. Perhaps the image caption(s) could say the photo is of the interior chamber of the camera. As Chris said, the original upload's file size is somewhat small, 177KB. Bammesk (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 15:22:31 (UTC)
Reason
Interesting bit of ephemera; it is promotional, but for a product long extinct. It illustrates a few unrelated and now somewhat rare things: Two-color printing, patent medicines and paper bag packaging. (I don't believe this bag originally came with Bile Beans in it, since a Google search found similar bags that just have more advertising on the other side rather than product info like weight.) I feel that I should acknowledge this is literally a piece of trash, but it's a very nice piece of trash.
Articles in which this image appears
Bile Beans, patent medicine, color printing, packaging. The placement on the Bile Beans page has been less than a week, since I only just discovered we had a page for them, but for the others it's been longer.
Agree with Yann. This is likely PD-anon-80 and PD-US-URAA, with a CC license for countries with a low TOO (like the UK, where Wellcome is based). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source has a scan of the other side of the bag; neither one has a copyright mark, just a trademark for "Bile Beans." (Even that was found to be invalid by a UK court, according to a particularly amusing part of the Bile Beans article.) In the US, that would be confirmation of public domain status but I'm less clear on UK copyright law. Moonreach (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UK has, to the best of my knowledge, not required copyright notices with publication. That being said, I've tagged the image PD-UK-anon, as no author is credited, and the work was published well before the cutoff. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The scan would have been better had they used a piece of black paper to prevent bleeding, but overall it's an excellent example of the contemporary advertising. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't love the licensing situation (I don't think our image pages are well set up for an image to be 'both' PD and CC), but I agree with Chris's assessment. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Used to be I'd tag my scans with a CC license, similar to Adam, so that reusers in countries with a sweat-of-the-brow doctrine were covered... people on Commons kept removing the tags. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no D&R. As the article explains, the other version is essentially an adaptation by a 20th-century researcher, and so should be considered a separate artwork. A delist of that work should be considered separately, if appropriate (but since that was the version that led to the image's prominence, there's an argument to be made for it). blameless23:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good looking picture, but I'm seeing some lean on the buildings (the Baker-Hostetler building is particularly bad). May need distortion correction. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 21:27:35 (UTC)
Reason
Very high EV (the plaza was unfortunately destroyed during the events of September 11, 2001) and I can't find another free, high-quality aerial shot of it like this. Also showcases several of its famous sculptures, including The Sphere and Ideogram.
@Crisco 1492 I undid your crop and redid it using the Crop Tool's lossless move. Using "precise" mode will recompress the image using the same compression level as the original image, which means it can cause significant further degradation. Lossless mode doesn't recompress the image at all, but the top and left have to be cropped by a multiple of 16 pixels (which isn't a problem in this case because 0 is a multiple of 16). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)20:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 01:38:34 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of the Tower of Hercules, a lighthouse in northern Spain. Its original construction dates to first century AC. It was given a neoclassical restoration in 1791. I saw this on Commons FPC recently.
Scrolling up and down with the verticals at the edge of my screen, I'm seeing that, if any, it is rather minimal. The building does have some non-straight bits (the base near the stairs has a noticeable slant), so that may be contributing to any perceived distortion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the tower looked crooked, but I scrolled up and down too and it isn't. I think the spiral pattern may be producing an optical illusion. Moonreach (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 15:13:20 (UTC)
Reason
Excellent copy of a visually striking poster for a well-known horror film. Target article has GA status. There were attempts to promote this image twicebefore, but those were over a decade ago and had low community input. Criticisms at the time included slight flaws (which were then fixed in a restoration pass) and aesthetic opinions of the poster itself. I don't think either of those is a definitive "no", especially with so few votes, so I wanted to try again.
Comment – @Chris Woodrich, Yann – I didn't catch this before, but this version of the poster is cropped from a version with a wide white border, as can be seen in the prior version. It seems like the only thing that was lost was a notice that said "Printed in U. S. A.", but the border didn't really have anything wrong with it, either. Do you prefer the current, cropped version or the version with the border? Moonreach (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the one with the white border, as that was how posters were made at the time. Only thing is we may end up with edit warriors who prefer the non-bordered version. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear on the procedure for marking things as derivatives when uploading modified files, but if you uploaded your last version of the poster as a new file and proposed it as an alt then we'd have both and people could choose. Moonreach (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – It was heavily damaged. Apparently the print was scratched with a sharp tool. All copies on the Net have the same defect. Yann (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 17:11:33 (UTC)
Reason
This is the largest (and maybe even sharpest) image ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. High EV because it shows the star density of the Andromeda Galaxy, and an absolutely amazing image overall. Very surprised it hasn't been nominated yet. There's a 0.7 gigabyte version (File:Andromeda Galaxy M31 - Heic1502a Full resolution.tiff), but that one isn't transcluded anywhere and is so big that it needs to be downloaded to open. Thanks to Chris Woodrich, we now have the full-sized, 1.5 billion-pixel image.
I am pretty sure all those small dots filling the background are noise, not stars. It's measurement or detection noise, somewhat similar to high ISO noise (but more intense). The image has scientific value even with all that noise, because lots of tiny stars are still discernible (perhaps for first time ever) within the noise, though not easily. However, for a galaxy photo in an encyclopedia, the excessive noise misleads, coming across as stars. It's just too noisy IMO. -Oppose.Bammesk (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: From what I've gathered from HubbleSite and overall specifications for the Hubble, those objects are more likely than not individual astronomical bodies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey did a similar look at the Milky Way's center, and it looks exactly the same when zoomed in. The link Chris posted actually sums it up really well. SirMemeGod12:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This confirms it. "Though the galaxy is over 2 million light-years away, The Hubble Space Telescope is powerful enough to resolve individual stars in a 61,000-light-year-long stretch of the galaxy’s pancake-shaped disk. It's like photographing a beach and resolving individual grains of sand. And there are lots of stars in this sweeping view -- over 100 million, with some of them in thousands of star clusters seen embedded in the disk."SirMemeGod13:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the ESA, there are more than one hundred million stars in the image. I don't know if they are counting all of the stars in the spiral galaxies and other multi-star features in the image (some are highlighted here), but based on available sources that doesn't appear to be noise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my vote. Reading This, linked above, helped. Thanks to both for the replies. I am still curious and a bit skeptical. The image has its own en-Wiki article, that's something. Bammesk (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I'm sorry, but this is another one where you can count the pixels up close. I'd support a higher-resolution copy of the same photo, though. Moonreach (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the file size. It's that, when I look at the largest version at 100% scaling, I can see individual pixels. I think this was upscaled at some point. Moonreach (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I'm not sure you downscaled it enough. The pixels in the image appear to be somewhere between 2x2 and 3x3. I'd think you'd want to reduce it to at least 50% it's original size (something like 2048x2800). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)20:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment was from Ahecht, but since you pinged me I should mention that this new version has white lines at the upper left and lower right, as though the photo were scanned slightly crooked. Moonreach (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an argument for uploading images from different sources as seperate files: If there's damage, it can help make repairing it easier, and it avoids the situation we have here, where there's two sources given, one of which is irrelevant to the one in question. I'd probably tease the variants out; I do think this is eminently featurable, but the nomination closes in two days, and it may be best to let this close and immediately renomnate, citing that it took a while to find the best version. Conditional Support on fixing up the source documentation on the file page if it helps, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having a dozen inferior versions of the same work of art doesn't help reusers. It would only confuse them. I mention the source for each version, in case someone wants to look into the details. I edited the sources mentioned. Yann (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2024 at 23:34:49 (UTC)
Reason
Quality image of Hurricane Milton at its peak intensity category (Category 5) over the Gulf of Mexico in October 2024. We have very few hurricane FPs that show the curvature of Earth. This shows it and I think that's a plus. This was shot from the International Space Station. The control arm on top helps establish the viewing angle/location. The image is noisy, but I think the high pixel count more or less makes up for it.
Weak support – The problem with taking pictures out the window of the ISS is the same as with taking them out the window of an airplane; there's always going to be at least a little schmutz and optical interference from the glass. That said, I think the hurricane itself looks pretty good. Moonreach (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – It is a good shot, don't get me wrong, but the tropical cyclone had a clouded eye and was not at its peak intensity when this image was taken. I do not believe this is a good example of a tropical cyclone and would not want it as the lead image of Tropical cyclone. ZZZ'S23:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]