Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2016

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

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 13:30:25 (UTC)

Reason

FP on Wikimedia Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Blue-tailed damselfly

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't see this image in Blue-tailed damselfly. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry — @Bruce1ee: - added now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see it; Blue-tailed damselfly hasn't been changed since July 2016. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry again — @Bruce1ee:. I thought you meant in Commons. Definitely there now. Promise :) 22:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support. Thanks. The DoF is a little shallow (the far legs are out-of-focus), but it's still very nice, and I like the bokeh. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's a strong photo, but it's currently only used in a gallery in (what looks like) an over-illustrated article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support MITB --- MITB_talk 14:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Limited EV (not in lead image, buried in gallery), shows only one gender when there is sexual dimorphism. Mattximus (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 13:45:32 (UTC)

Reason

FP on Wikimedia Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Jaguar

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Not a gigantic file, but sharp enough & illustrates camouflage well. Sca (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - MITB --- MITB_talk 14:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A bit soft in some areas, but a great action shot...--Godot13 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jaguar (Panthera onca palustris) male Rio Negro 2.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 12:49:40 (UTC)

Reason

high quality photograph of a notable species and therefore high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Luidia senegalensis (most EV), Luidia, Paxillosida, +1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others

Creator

Andrea Westmoreland

• Support as nominator – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Pretty good detail, interesting species. Sca (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It's not blowing me away, but I like it; a decent candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A lot of the limbs are OOF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's French for egg, right? Sca (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I like it, but I just find the off-centre composition slightly unsatisfying. 109.146.96.222 (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - MITB --- MITB_talk 09:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite interesting. Brandmeister^talk 10:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Should this also have an image of the reverse side? Starfish look quite different underneath. Nergaal (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we all? Sca (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nine-armed Sea Star (Luidia senegalensis) (4338628827).jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 04:00:05 (UTC)

Reason

The "Black Mahler", most famous for his setting of Longfellow, The Song of Hiawatha, which only stopped being a major London tradition when the Second World War intervened. This is the second nomination: The first barely failed to reach quorum during a slump period for featured pictures. He comes from a period where free-licensed photographs are hardest to get, particularly for a Briton.

Articles in which this image appears

Samuel Coleridge-Taylor +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Unknown photographer, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not quite sharp, but given the age, and the quality of restoration this is worthy of promotion. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as before.--Godot13 (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 12:35:33 (UTC)

Reason

It is a fair quality photograph that exhibits a lesser represented area of the Wiki.

Articles in which this image appears

Carling Black Label

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Britfan97

• Support as nominator – Britfan97 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Beer aficionado though I am, must oppose this due to substandard detail at full res – and the quasi-promotional character of the composition. Sca (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{PS: Photo was added to article Aug. 22. Sca (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

• Oppose. I find this picture too dark and a little cluttered in the background. I think a full pint would also be preferable. I'm certainly not opposed to this kind of photo in principle (and I'm also a beer-lover, though not this one); indeed, we're very short of drink FPs. While it's not perfect (white head on a white background?), I think something like File:Leffe blonde en verre.jpg would be a little better. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on choices, Josh. (How about this one?) Sca (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me about the beer or the photo? I definitely like the beer; I've just moved from the UK to Canada, which has opened up a whole new range of drinks to me. I tried the well-named Moosehead Lager the other day- surprisingly flavourful, given stereotypes about North American beer... The photo still isn't quite there lighting-wise, even though the composition's good. It's also not under an appropriate license. I suspect if we have a dig around we'll find a few that are worth a nomination here; I'll keep my eyes open. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Craft' and 'micro'-brews have proliferated hugely in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. I don't know if the same is true in Canada. Anyhow, my pic was just to illustrate a simple shot of a glass of beer under natural light – of which there are very few on Commons. Here's one that would be OK were it not for the horrendously distracting clutter. →
Sca (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The "fogging" effect of the lighting at the left of the picture is not good. 109.146.96.222 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others – Jobas (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 14:22:55 (UTC)

Reason

A beautiful picture in a high quality of this nice river. I'm pretty new (only the second discussion which I open here), so I hope that it really suits the criteria page (I looked there, and in my opinion it is, but I hope I'm not wrong).

Articles in which this image appears

Seine

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Romanceor

• Support as nominator – MITB --- MITB_talk 14:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hi MITB, This photo doesn't presently meet the featured picture criteria as it's currently not used in any articles on this Wikipedia. More generally, It seems to have limited encyclopedic value, and the technical standards aren't great by modern standards. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Nick-D. I've added it to Seine (it was needed), and expanded the description a litte, so it will have more encyclopedic value, if it helps, because I can do nothing else, so I guess that you'll stiil be opposed.MITB --- MITB_talk 05:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I agree with Nick-D on technical standards, it isn't sharp at full size, also the headlight stream is too strong, it throws off the balance (1 or 2 second exposure would have been better in my opinion). Bammesk (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others – Jobas (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 05:53:18 (UTC)

Reason

A fine image; grainy, but acceptably so for a historical shot. Previous nomination seems to have mainly failed as I was late preparing the alt.

Articles in which this image appears

Abbey Lincoln, Women in Music

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Jac. de Nijs / Anefo, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - MITB --- MITB_talk 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – (Previous) Suggest removal of that bit of the microphone. Sca (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easily doable; I just worry it might be misleading. Thoughts? I could prepare an alt, if desired. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the mic, but too bad there isn't more of it. I think it adds balance to the composition and shows she is on stage. I support either way though, with and without mic. Bammesk (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and nice angle from below. Brandmeister^talk 10:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with microphone. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The picture is taken from below. --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sorry, but I'm really not sold on the angle, here. Perhaps acceptable for a certain kind of documentary/journalistic image, but not at all great for a portrait, in my view. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Abbey Lincoln in 1966.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 06:09:14 (UTC)

Reason

Well illustrates how a Tree trunk spider captures its prey

Articles in which this image appears

Tree trunk spider

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

Jeevan Jose

• Support as nominator – Jee 06:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but am creeped out. Anyways it is a nice pictures and deserves it. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 06:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - MITB --- MITB_talk 09:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not perfect - it's a little grainy and arguably a little washed out - but the merits overweigh. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not perfectly sharp, but FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Reprocessed considering the opinions above. Let me know if it is not an improvement. Jee 17:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hersilia-2016-06-19-002.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2016 at 05:18:25 (UTC)

Reason

Here the legend is shown in a good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

1955, 2011, Steve Jobs

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

Matthew Yohe

• Support as nominator – MITB --- MITB_talk 05:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – not sharp at full size. Bammesk (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Bammesk – Jobas (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Good composition and a valuable image, but the technical quality just isn't there. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2016 at 20:07:59 (UTC)

Reason

A notable actress photographed by a notable photographer is always a good combination. The first nomination is an odd case: Six support, but one was about 15 minutes late and one still too young of an account, so it didn't reach quorum

Articles in which this image appears

The Rivals, Zaida Ben-Yusuf, Elsie Leslie (in no particular order)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Zaida Ben-Yusuf, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support MITB --- MITB_talk 04:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marvellous Spider-Man 01:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Elsie Leslie (1899) by Zaida Ben-Yusuf.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2016 at 06:47:32 (UTC)

Reason

An artistic high resolution scene captured at Nasir-al molk mosque. The colorful show of sunlight going through the stained glass is really interesting. This picture has won the following titles so far:

• Commons featured picture and the Wikimedia Commons 2nd picture of the year 2015
• Picture of the day in Fr Wiki
• Featured picture in Arabic Wiki
• Featured picture in Persian Wiki

I think this makes us be careful before voting!

Articles in which this image appears

Nasir ol Molk Mosque, Color, Shiraz, Stained glass

FP category for this image

Interiors

Creator

Ayyoubsabawiki

• Support as nominator – Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Shadow areas way too dark; there is a lot of information there, but it needs some skilful tweaking to avoid noise - a simple histogram correction isn't enough. --Janke | Talk 07:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Featured picture on Wikimedia Commons and arabic wikipedia and second place in Picture of the Year 2015.--Mbazri (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – A captivating composition, but I must agree with Janke that the inky shadow areas are just too dark – and in this case look exaggerated. Sca (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Nice picture! But I have to agree with above, the shadows are obscuring most of the interior of this mosque, so aesthetically nice but not encyclopedically nice. Mattximus (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others – Jobas (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2016 at 04:37:39 (UTC)

Reason

A fine image of an important early role in the theatre of the Harlem Renaissance. Father of James Earl Jones. The first nomination got four and a half supports during a slump period, with the only complaint being about Van Vechten's composition - something that we cannot do anything about three quarters of a century later.

Articles in which this image appears

Robert Earl Jones, James Earl Jones

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Carl Van Vechten, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A kind of slightly tired hero, I don't mind the composition. Brandmeister^talk 08:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I think it's great as a portrait, but I agree about the composition. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jee 07:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - fine portrait, composition don't bother me none. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Robert Earl Jones in Langston Hughes' Don't You Want to be Free? (23 June 1938; photograph by Carl Van Vechten).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 06:33:27 (UTC)

Reason

It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.

Articles in which this image appears

Death's-head hawkmoth

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jeevan Jose

• Support as nominator – Jee 06:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - do we know the species? Mattximus (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is almost impossible to distinguish the larva of these three species. All three exist in India. I don't like wild guesses as mentioned in may larva pictures here. Jee 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Jobas (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – But which one is the head, and which one is the tail? Marvellous Spider-Man 13:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2016 at 09:02:36 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV (complete view of the main palace building and upper garden)

Articles in which this image appears

Peterhof Palace

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent depth of field Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Florstein (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A great candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – This should come as WP:TFP. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Peterhof Palace.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2016 at 17:45:04 (UTC)

Reason

I stumbled across this picture randomly and it seemed to give a well framed high quality image of a notable public square.

Articles in which this image appears

Samarkand, Registan, Architecture of Uzbekistan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Ekrem Canli

• Support as nominator – Mattximus (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Pretty, with pretty good detail – I only wish there was less foreground. (Also wondering if the sky tones were manipulated a bit.) Sca (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I really like the image itself, but the sky has issues. Also, in addition to a few tiny specs in the sky there is a rather large dust circle, mid sky, just right of center.--Godot13 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree about the sky. If it's actually natural then I'm happy to be corrected, but it looks like an artificial gradient. 86.129.206.245 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2016 at 04:36:04 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of this Indonesian singer and actress.

Articles in which this image appears

Baby Huwae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Tati Photo Studios, restoration by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per nom, another solid restoration. Mattximus (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very, very nice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Definitely the kind of nomination I can get behind. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per all of the above.--Godot13 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Baby Huwae, c 1963, Tati Photo Studio 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 07:39:18 (UTC)

Reason

Adds significant encyclopedic value to an articles

Articles in which this image appears

Parthenos sylvia, Mud-puddling

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Jeevan Jose

• Support as nominator – Jee 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice, and I like the contrasting background. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice.--Godot13 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful shot. Kaldari (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Parthenos sylvia-Kadavoor-2016-06-25-001.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2016 at 11:11:51 (UTC)

Reason

The image is clear at depicting the state assembly building which has a unique architecture and its landscape . It is also representative of the state of Sarawak. The image was also a winner in the 2015 Wiki Loves Monuments competition.

Articles in which this image appears

Sarawak, Sarawak state assembly building, 砂拉越

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

Nickytmy

• Support as nominator – Cerevisae (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose – good EV, but the sky looks a bit unnatural, at magnification of 200% or more, there are obvious artifacts where the sky meets the landscape. Bammesk (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Per Bammesk – Jobas (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose – Per Bammesk. To my eye the sky colors look oversaturated. Sca (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Horrible texture even at medium size. 109.146.248.82 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • JPEG artefacting. Great shot, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2016 at 11:21:04 (UTC)

Reason

A fine example of early-20th-century sporting artwork. First nomination failed to reach quorum, with no issues raised.

Articles in which this image appears

Stade Français, Racing 92, Georges Scott, Pierre Guillemin

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport, probably?

Creator

Georges Scott restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just find (and I suspect, given the last nomination, some people feel the same) that the picture itself is pretty uninspiring. I'm also not convinced that there's oodles of EV. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not like we have a huge amount of early football pictures to choose from. Football history is a legitimate subject. . Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course football history is a legitimate subject, and I'll take your word for it that we don't have a lot of early football pictures to choose from. But that's not really the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with the above, but I will vote this way. I don't really see the EV as well. There is no page for the painting, and the pages it is found in do not make too much sense. If you want to illustrate the rugby team, a photograph would be more relevant. It is also in a player's page, but the image doesn't specify which player is him. I don't see what is gained by having (a rather bland) painting instead of a clear photograph, sorry. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattximus: You're presuming the existence of photographs, though, which probably don't exist. 1906 is probably way too early for cameras to do action shots, so, you're basically voting this down because you'd rather have something thatcannot possibly exist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For which page specifically? I offered different reasons why this image doesn't really offer EV in any of the pages it's currently found. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)+[reply]

• It's the only illustration of historic uniform in Stade Français, for example. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're moving the target. Do you want this to be judged as an action shot or as an image of a historic uniform? We could surely have a much, much better image for showing historic uniform, and I'm not sure we urgently need an action shot... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No I'm not: It's valuable on many fronts, and I cannot possibly fathom your response. We don't have colour photographs of the uniform from this period. Obviously. We don't have documentation of the state of the fields, of historic rugby football, or a number of other things, except for this image - and yet it somehow lacks EV. Even if this image is just a nice historic illustration, it gives a lot of incidental information about what rugby was like at the time, and is thus valuable; that it's fairly unique in doing so makes it more so, not less. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and, especially in this case, there's a lot of incidental information in this image that a thousand words will never convey. For example, that one could wear a non-uniform cap; the depiction of a tackle; the shoes; the state of the field; the rugby ball; the colours of the uniforms; the style of them, seen from a variety of angles - all these are useful for anchoring a reader. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per my comments above. I've mulled it over, and I'm not convinced. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've explained why I've reached the conclusion I have, and I'm not the only person who has reached a similar conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree; harrying opposers (and borderline twisting my words- I have neither claimed nor insinuated that football history is not a legitimate topic) just comes across as a chilling technique. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And I agree, that was rude. I just don't understand the idea that historic imagery, particularly the only historica imagery in an article, not giving EV. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we can clarify? What specific encyclopedic entry does this provide EV for? It's in 4 pages at the moment. One is for a player that may or may not be illustrated in this image (so no EV there), the second is for the artist, but it's buried in the gallery among others (no EV there), and then it's in 2 modern teams where a photograph would be better. I agree with the above, if you want to illustrate historic uniform then a photograph would be better, if you want to talk about the "action", well none of the 4 pages actually talks about the historical aspect of the action, so I have to agree, I don't see any EV. Mattximus (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattximus: But the modern teams are also historic teams. It's in their articles history sections. Further, there wouldn't be any historic photos from this period in colour, which really puts a damper on any historic photos of uniforms. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – INeverCry 20:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2016 at 14:05:10 (UTC)

Reason

A bit more from Leighton. Good digitizations of private collection artworks seem to be particularly valuable, as they aren't that accessible by public.

Articles in which this image appears

The Accolade (painting), others

FP category for this image

Paintings

Creator

Edmund Leighton

• Support as nominator – Brandmeister^talk 14:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jee 14:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Accolade by Edmund Blair Leighton.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 06:28:25 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image of this promising young actress who died at a young age.

Articles in which this image appears

Lies Noor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Djakartawood Studios, restored by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Signature on photo, mediocre detail at full res., contrast issues, promotional. (Target article = 480 words, raising question of notability.) Sca (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Signature on photo" (name on photo, rather) is exactly how Djakartawood sold its pictures (File:Ermina Zaenah c 1955, Hollywood Photo Studios.jpg, File:Farida Arriany c 1958 (three-quarters portrait) - before restoration.jpg, File:Mimi Mariani c. 1955 (portrait) - before restoration.jpg etc.). To remove the name would be to fundamentally change how the image was presented.

"Moderate resolution": I don't know what world you're living in, but 10.4 megapixels for a postcard-sized photograph is far from "Mediocre". This was scanned at 900 PPI.

"Contrast issues": What, exactly, are you referring to? There are no blown highlights, nor are there any clipped shadows.

"Promotional": For an actress who has been dead for fifty-five years? Really? Are you going to oppose a picture of Notre Dame next, because it's also used for tourism?

"Questionable notability": Cover of multiple magazines (Varia, Minggu Pagi, etc.), demanded - and received - large wages for the time (I have a menu from c. 1955... Rp 10 would have gotten you a full meal at a good restaurant. Multiply that by 750 or 1000), coverage in numerous contemporary sources, including obituaries from two sources cited in the article alone, funeral attended by A-list Indonesian celebrities. She clearly passes WP:N. The "Sca bar" you wish to implement is, thankfully, not policy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for article length: 480 words is longer than the article for Parthenos sylvia (317 words) and The Accolade (painting) (340 words), yet I don't see you claiming either of them is non-notable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't speak Indonesian, but a search for Elisa Firmansjah Noor and Lies Noor on Indonesian Wiki failed to find an article. Quick Googling of her name yielded one hit – the English WP article targeted here.

Contrast: Poor contrast with backdrop, inky shadowing of hair.

Promotional: "Indonesian actress Lies Noor (c. 1956) in a photograph from Djakartawood." – Sca (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She died in 1961, and Indonesian film history is not well represented online, particularly for people who died before Misbach Yusa Biran began actually trying to catalogue that history. The Indonesian Wikipedia is certainly no measure: less than 0.5% of the editors there are willing to actually go to a library and crack open a book (hence why the majority of their Featured Articles are translated from ours). Their articles on numerous actors from the '50s are far below ours in terms of quality (compare A. Hamid Arief and id:A. Hamid Arief, or Indriati Iskak and id:Indriati Iskak). Your inability to use the internet (the majority of the sources cited are online; you need only follow the links) does not render her non-notable.
  To the best of my knowledge, Djakartawood has been defunct since the late 1950s. Crediting them on the image page (not in the article - indeed, they aren't credited in the article) is simple acknowledgement of the photographer, and is no different than crediting Mathew Brady for images of Civil War-era generals. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Now answer me this: what policy did you draw your "480 words? notability is questionable" metric. It certainly can't be from your own best editing practices. Four of your last five articles (Janina Altman, St. Nicholas Church, Stendal, Arnold Lyongrün, and Johan Otto Hesselbom) would have "questionable notability" using that metric. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Sca – Jobas (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with Sca on all their points (it has great contrast/resolution, good EV, not promotional) but I agree about the signature, I also find it distracting. Considering the page is not about the photograph itself, but about the actor, would it be acceptable/possible to remove it? If it was about the photograph then of course I can see the argument of leaving it as it was intended. Mattximus (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be possible, and I will do so (reluctantly) as a separate file. I subscribe to Adam Cuerden's approach of leaving well enough alone (I've only seen him remove a watermark once, and that begrudgingly).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, Mattximus  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt. Mattximus (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Captivating image. Not everything is to do with resolution. No comment on the other issues. 109.146.248.82 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – about promotional: we do have promotional (or publicity) FP images [1], [2], [3], [4]. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention numerous recent images from Indonesia (Gordon Tobing, Indriati Iskak [was used on a magazine cover], Chitra Dewi, A. Hamid Arief, Aminah Cendrakasih [was used on a magazine cover], Mieke Wijaya, Farida Arriany [has her signature]). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the restorations but the dark areas look dusty still. I don't like the pose and wish the shades of gray were more distinct, but can't ask for everything in a historic image. Looks better without the signature. My concern is the dusty dark areas. Bammesk (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The pose is pretty standard for her publicity stills (see the category). I'll touch up the shadows when I get home. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT – Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT Even if promotional, this is type of portraits I can accept, unlike some modern generic promos churned out by PR agencies. Also improves coverage on such little-known women. The only thing that bothers is her missing birth year. I suspect it's the 1940s. Brandmeister^talk 09:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with judging her age based on her being in school up through 1955 is that, during the Japanese occupation (42-45) and revolution (45-49), a lot of students were delayed. I'm still attempting to track down a biography outside of Varia (I have several editions of the contemporary film magazines Film Varia and Dunia Film, but my collection is spotty). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the watermark/signature issue... I think we have to ask what the picture is showing. If the picture is to display a work of art, removing the artist's signature would be deeply problematic, as it would change the nature of the work. Similar if it was to display the likes of a film poster. If, however, we have an image which, for our purposes, is fundamentally a picture of the original work's subject, rather than the work itself (as we have here), then I think we have to ask whether these signatures/watermarks are adding/detracting from the image. Given that we are (quite reasonably) so opposed to watermarks on contemporary images, I'm not sure I understand the anxiety about removing them from older images. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the watermark on the ALT. I think removing a 60+ year old watermark is significantly different than requiring that contributors of photographs to not include watermarks in the first place (I can't think of any examples where a Flickr user's watermarked image was send this way), particularly since the names appear to have been printed with the photograph (note how the hexagon pattern of File:Ermina Zaenah c 1955 (portrait) - before restoration.jpg is also found on her name). I am concerned about misrepresenting the photograph as a physical object. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt looks noticeably better, so I'll cancel my opposition. (I guess this amounts to weak support for Alt.)

I'm not going to reopen the old debate about notability, except to opine that in featuring any photo we should ask the question, why are we featuring this picture? Put another way, why would our audience, the readers of English Wiki, be interested in this picture and associated article?

I'll not say more about this nom. Sca (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, I am interested in featuring images to educate viewers; to make viewers understand that there are more things in heaven and earth than their philosophies can imagine; to ensure that nobody, in the future, has to say "sometimes you can feel lazy and think we're so big we don't have to really know anything about other people". That's my reason. And it's clearly not shared by everyone. Hence why we use the criteria and not individual editing philosophies for determining featured pictures. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt meets all the criteria and none of the non-criteria used above as reasons for opposition or for watering-down a support convince me in the slightest. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt - Godot13 (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support alt, neutral on original. I find Sca's arguments unconvincing; there is no reason for us to be worried about the fact that that this is a promotional photo given that the subject is long dead, and the claims about notability do not seem to be based on any formal guidelines. The subject is not famous in the English speaking world, but that is certainly not a reason to oppose featuring a picture of her. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the one who was banished to the wilds of Canada? Sca (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt – INeverCry 20:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lies Noor (c. 1956), Djakartawood (no name).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2016 at 23:43:08 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV (complete view of the Field of Mars)

Articles in which this image appears

Field of Mars (Saint Petersburg)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Great image but why the large variation in sharpness, especially the right side? I am curious, was it shot from a tower or airborne? Bammesk (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bammesk- Thanks. The main focal point was the center of the Field of Mars and f8 might not have been quite enough for the far surrounding areas. I was trying to balance shutter speed (1/400 IMO is very slow for aerial shooting) and potential grain. This was a difficult one to crop. I didn't want to cut off the large square building on the far right along with the base of the bridge (for aesthetics). By the same token, keeping the Church of the Spilled Blood (top center) seemed like a good idea. This was shot from a helicopter, restricted to flying over the river only, at a minimum altitude (in the city) of roughly 500 meters. It was intermittently overcast with some turbulence.--Godot13 (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My browser display didn't do it justice at full size, looked at it again in my photo software and the sharpness looks Ok. I love the composition, the EV and everything else. Support. Bammesk (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC) (I just saw it was a zoom lens)[reply]
      • Many thanks for the kind words.--Godot13 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little selective sharpening on the right side (with the unsharp mask tool in GIMP) and it was an improvement, just saying. Bammesk (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Jobas (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Though I agree, F11 would have been better. ISO 400 on my 60D is still perfectly acceptable (not sure about 5DS), and the 5DS you were using would give you lots of wiggle room resolution-wise if you needed to use an even higher ISO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A little blurriness is acceptable in a shot like this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-Field of Mars.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2016 at 23:50:34 (UTC)

Reason

High ev as lead image and good scan of the painting. Missed promotion by 1 vote in the last nomination

Articles in which this image appears

Ferdinand VII of Spain, etc..

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility

Creator

Francisco Goya

• Support as nominator – Spongie555 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks cut off a bit at the bottom (see text lower left), but that's probably by the frame. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I sat the last vote out, but since it's a Goya.... Sca (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Francisco Goya - Portrait of Ferdinand VII of Spain in his robes of state (1815) - Prado.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 04:17:39 (UTC)

Reason

Notable for several reasons: a highly accomplished Shakespearian actress in her youth, and a theatrical innovator with her husband later on who both encouraged the creation of and premièred rôles in several important early operas by important writers and composers of 19th century Britain; for example, W.S. Gilbert's first big hit outside of pantomimes, Ages Ago had her in it and was at her and her husband's theatre; other major writers and composers for them included F. C. Burnand, and Arthur Sullivan (though she didn't act in Cox and Box as it has no female roles) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which this image appears

Priscilla Horton

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Richard James Lane et al; restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very crisp. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Interesting target article, which links to one about her husband, Thomas German Reed. (Assume we'll say "artist's conception of....") Sca (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sca: Well, given the period, it has to be art: There's no photos of her until much later in life, for the very obvious reasons. It may well be an accurate portrayal of her appearance on stage, though: Flying someone in on a wire is not a new innovation; hell, the Victorian era had all sorts of interesting stage effects and spectacles, many of which are way too dangerous to do today (c.f. star trap). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite unusual portrait and excellent resolution. Brandmeister^talk 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Priscilla Horton (Mrs. German Reed) as Ariel.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 05:57:59 (UTC)

Reason

A rare picture of White colored with black patches, Indian Rabbit having glittering red eyes

Articles in which this image appears

Domestic rabbit

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Md iet

• Support as nominator – Md iet (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy close - Lighting is flat, resolution is below minimum (1500px each side), background is messy, eye is red, out-of-focus, noisy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy close - per above.--Godot13 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy close per WP:SNOW --Janke | Talk 07:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy close per Chris. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Speedy close per Chris. – Jobas (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, shall try to improve.--Md iet (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per those above.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:46, 15 September 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 14:31:33 (UTC)

Reason

A fine image from a notable artist from one of Gilbert's last works. Previous nomination was a couple vtes short, with the only objection being to, um... cropping blank paper, with no captions or other marks. Which seems a weird objection. While we don't have an article on the book at present, the book is discussed in both articles as a notable adaptation.

Articles in which this image appears

H.M.S. Pinafore and Gilbert and Sullivan

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations

Creator

Alice B. Woodward, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per last time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great restoration. Everything that I thought might be a mark or smudge seems to be part of the halftone. Smurrayinchester 10:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:W. S. Gilbert - Alice B. Woodward - The Pinafore Picture Book - Frontispiece.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 17:01:26 (UTC)

Reason

A very nice, detailed picture of him. Photos seem to either date from much later, or appear to have had major editing done so that they're equivalent to drawings - I'm not at all convinced that https://www.loc.gov/item/brh2003003291/PP/ , for example, is a genuine photograph in the facial region. It gives the impression of a painting. This image is important enough to be used as the basis for a stamp later, File:JamesRussellLowell-1940.jpg (it's a mirror image, but otherwise obviously based on this).
By the way, if you haven't noticed, I've been clearing out all my half-done stuff this month, so forgive me if I get through a fair amount of stuff; I have a lot of things I've put a lot of work into, but never went through the last bit of effort to finish.

Articles in which this image appears

James Russell Lowell +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers

Creator

John Angel James Wilcox, (1835-???) after Samuel Worcester Rowse (1822-1901). Restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, love it. Bonus points for being the stable lead image of a featured article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:James Russell Lowell - 1855.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 00:28:59 (UTC)

Reason

A fantastic action photo of a person who A. was the first female chemist to work for the United States Geological Survey, and B. worked on the Manhattan Project.

Articles in which this image appears

Margaret D. Foster

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering

Creator

National Photo Company; Restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - About as good as we can expect for an indoors action shot from 1919. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – good EV. Sidenote: The photo shows her at work but I wouldn't call this an action shot. This is a set and posed shot. In 1919 nothing was left to chance, intentionally. A blurry subject and/or a moving subject is not synonymous with action shot, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point. I should have said "simulated action shot" or the like. But it's in the actual laboratory, and presumably pretending to do actual things she did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the photo shows her at work, and it is a very nice photo. A slice in time :) Bammesk (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, high EV, good quality photo for 1919. Also, nice work improving the article. Kaldari (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It doesn't look straight. I wonder whether making the upright vertical would be better. 109.146.248.31 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The drawers at the bottom are straight; they seemed the most likely to be the correct ones to use. There's also a matter of balancing how much you'd need to crop out to make a rotation: Make the shelves completely vertical, and you're cropping a lot out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Making the shelf upright exactly vertical loses very little, and nothing of any consequence that I can see. To my eye, actually, the best result is achieved by making that upright fractionally off vertical, in the same direction as presently, but not so much. 109.146.248.31 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I tried it, it made everything else look tilted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Margaret D. Foster, in Lab, 4 October 1919.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 14:38:02 (UTC)

Reason

high quality photograph of a notable bird species, and therefore high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Eurasian blue tit (most EV), Cyanistes

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Baresi franco

• Support as nominator – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Fine detail, good colors & contrast. Sca (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Tail is a little OOF, but that's not an issue to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – very nice photograph. Mattximus (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - excellent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eurasian blue tit Lancashire.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2016 at 06:55:47 (UTC)

Reason

A photograph of a fair quality that contributes and improves visually on its respective article

Articles in which this image appears

Palystes castaneus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

Britfan97

• Support as nominator – Britfan97 (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Unfortunate background, also was added to article just today, thus not even eligible for FP. --Janke | Talk 07:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Below the bar for arthropod photography at FPC. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per others – INeverCry 00:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 17:13:08 (UTC)

Reason

FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Warthog Common warthog

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Shadows are too harsh. Rump is slightly OOF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Chris Woodrich – Jobas (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Great color and detail. INeverCry 20:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a great vivid scene (and I could live with the slight focus issues at the rear), but the shadows obscure the face and frontquarters, which should surely be the main point of the image. Smurrayinchester 10:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 17:24:47 (UTC)

Reason

FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Four-spotted chaser

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - But the image doesn't need to be in the same article twice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done sorted thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) female dorsal.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 18:34:27 (UTC)

Reason

Very high quality image of a classic car, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Mercedes-Benz W114

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

1bumer

• Support as nominator – FakeShemp (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My only criticism of this is that I wish there was just a little more space around the car. 109.146.248.31 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree with the IP that there could be more space, but this is a very encyclopedic shot, and that makes up for the tiny flaw. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I like this image... Does it concern anyone that there is a license plate that could potentially identify the owner and (presumably) the phone number of a dealer or garage?--Godot13 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's even stranger: the derivative crop of the plate, File:PL-CBR 7C°.jpg, has the whole bottom line of info blurred out. INeverCry 08:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempts to edit out licence plates are inevitably distracting, and should only be used if necessary. I suspect it was edited in the crop in order to avoid the advertising made much more prominent by the cropping; that's fair enough, but it's not necessary here where you'd have to look for it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Free advertising anyways on a nice car like this. Might be a different case if the plate was on some old beater... INeverCry 22:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as currently nominated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mercedes-Benz W115 220D (1973).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2016 at 10:49:30 (UTC)

Reason

Photogenic 15th century castle enhanced by evening light and reflection in calm water.

Articles in which this image appears

Josselin Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator – Colin°^Talk 10:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think the composition is brilliant ... I find the picture a little cramped at the left, and the whole reflection thing a little too much, but perhaps I am being too critical. 109.146.248.31 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'm wondering why the reflection seems to take up more vertical space than the castle itself. Or is that an optical illusion?

Also, in the other two pix of the castle at the target article it appears to be built of gray stone, whereas this pic. shows a golden hue to the stone. Sca (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sca, I think the nom's caption addresses the lighting – golden sunset. Bammesk (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sca, I flipped the image and overlaid them and found the reflected castle to be a very close match for the real one. If you measure from the base of the pointy roofs down to the darker brick of the base, and then compare with the reflection they are much the same. Yes this image is shot during the Golden Hour, which changes the colours to a much warmer tone. Wrt the other comment about being cramped on the left, the scene has a large tree to the left of the castle, which becomes an "include it all or nothing" distracting element that then makes the castle much smaller in the frame. Beneath this tree is shadow, so that area of the scene isn't particularly photogenic (and the reflection, being darker, is just a big dark patch). To the right isn't a whole lot other than some canal boats which also distract the eye from the subject. I would have preferred a little more space either side, but including part of this huge tree or a bit of a canal boat just looked messy to me. -- Colin°^Talk 18:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – EV, good resolution and very detailed at full size (can count almost every brick). Bammesk (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Sidenote: I am not a fan of accurate reflection of man-made structures.[reply]
• OK, support – Gargantuan file. Sca (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 20:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Upper left corner is a bit tight relative to the rest (explanation above makes sense), but the detail more than makes up for it...--Godot13 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Josselin Château Evening Light Reflected 2016-08-15 WLM.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2016 at 03:03:32 (UTC)

Reason

The only free image of the rarest disease Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis available in Commons. Also a valued image on commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

Monirul Alam

• Support as nominator – Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Use of shadow may be artistically interesting, but does not work to document the disease clearly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Chris Woodrich – Jobas (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Chris. INeverCry 20:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The main problem is rather black-and-whiteness, the shadows could always be adjusted. Brandmeister^talk 13:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not without losing a lot of detail, especially on his right hand and the right side of his face. INeverCry 00:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2016 at 18:55:49 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Saint Michael's Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Godot13

• Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 00:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:RUS-2016-Aerial-SPB-St Michael's Castle 02.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 16:48:38 (UTC)

Reason

I'm not quite sure about my crop (those wanting to try their own hand can find the pre-crop restoration at [5] - I restored everything, including parts I was pretty sure I'd crop out.) but the image is highly encyclopædic, and minority women, particularly Native Americans, tend to be under-photographed relative to their importance. It's a very good photo of her at a key point in her political activities (just around the time of her meeting with President Calvin Cooleridge)

Articles in which this image appears

Ruth Muskrat Bronson

FP category for this image

Some subcategory of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People probably Artists and writers, Political, or Other: she worked and was successful in a LOT of fields.

Creator

National Photo Company, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting, didn't know her before. Crop looks tolerable to me, given some unfortunate extraneous stuff on the left in the original photo. Brandmeister^talk 19:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 22:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the author of the biography. Truly difficult to find images of minority women and this one is quite striking and relevant. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ruth Muskrat.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Armbrust: Is that the best one? I always saw that as more for people whose EV was primarily in their clothing, so I'm a little hesitant to put someone who's notable in her own right in there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't though about that. Moved image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2016 at 18:02:34 (UTC)

Reason

This is an image of Vasari's masterpiece

Articles in which this image appears

Florence Cathedral

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Livioandronico

• Support as nominator – LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – INeverCry 22:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but is this interlaced? Thought they weren't meant to be interlaced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Adam Cuerden,what you mean for "interlaced"? thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Livioandronico2013: I think Adam means this. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dome of Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore (Florence).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]