Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2013
| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2013 at 08:15:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good-quality poster of a notable opera. Would have preferred a colour version - coloured images thumbnail a bit better - but, despite that, in my opinion this is the best of the LoC posters for the opera.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Franz von Suppé, Fatinitza
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Theatre
- Creator
- Henry Atwell Thomas, restoration by User:Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice, as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Pine✉ 05:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Nikhil(talk) 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Henry Atwell Thomas - Franz von Suppé - Fatinitza.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2013 at 05:56:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Savitha Sastry, Dance in India, Bharatanatyam
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
- Creator
- A K Srikanth
- Support as nominator --Nikhil(talk) 05:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as a performer on stage definitely needs to be in her element (i.e. cut out background is odd). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose needs a background. Kaldari (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Crisco and Kaldari --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 14:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2013 at 22:14:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Orchis mascula
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
- Creator
- Tuxyso
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Nikhil(talk) 01:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support nice work. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Lovely. --Anton017 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Orchis-mascula-Formation.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2013 at 21:43:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality image which shows off the effect of a neutral density filter in an interesting way
- Articles in which this image appears
- Neutral density filter plus the same page in a couple of other languages
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
- Creator
- Robert Emperley from Strasbourg, Alsace, France
- Support as nominator --Kimsey0 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Support Excellent demonstration of the filter in use. We need one for Polarizing filter (photography) too. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. overexposed in most of the image. Heh. Just kidding, support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)\
- How did I see that coming? Hmmm... (should bold your real !vote) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- True. The joke isn't worth the image failing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - very interesting, high EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Nikhil(talk) 16:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I wish the caption would clarify what you're supposed to do with this. Do you attach this to the camera lens somehow?-- mcshadypl TC 04:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support - Great encyclopedic value and executed fairly well, but I think knowing the degree of light reduction (3 stops or thereabouts?) would add significant value. Juliancolton (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to contact the creator and hear him out. If I get any information, I'll add it here as well as on the file page. --Kimsey0 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's a ND4 (2 stops light reduction) according to the creator of the picture. I have updated the description page accordingly. --Kimsey0 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to contact the creator and hear him out. If I get any information, I'll add it here as well as on the file page. --Kimsey0 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder i you would crop out most of the fingers and have the lens be about half of the entire image would look better. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's better to do it this way, as this makes it clear it's not how the lens is normally used, while showing its effect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support, high EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support per the reasons given by nominator. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Neutral density filter demonstration.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2013 at 08:04:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Excellent depiction of the Nembrotha cristata in its natural habitat
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nembrotha cristata, Bunaken National Park, Nudibranch
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs
- Creator
- Chriswan Sungkono
- Support as nominator --ELEKHHT 08:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there a reason this one is not used in the infobox? What does the other offer that this doesn't? J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not really, so I moved it to the infobox. --ELEKHHT 00:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question does it always have that ugly plant growing out of its back? --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they're the cerata. They're functionally similar to gills, although with several additional uses. (also, Support both Room for two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well then, odd body part clarified, Support. Thanks Adam. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 21:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I also support the Alt. Either one is good for me, though I do feel the Alt has a bit more EV in regards to the animal itself and the original more EV in regards to the environment. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well then, odd body part clarified, Support. Thanks Adam. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 21:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they're the cerata. They're functionally similar to gills, although with several additional uses. (also, Support both Room for two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Fantastic picture of a fantastic creature. 86.160.215.247 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Original Will be hard to find a better picture of this creature. Mattximus (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose original, support alt I think File:Nembrotha_cristata_2.jpg has less ambiguity about the growths on the creature's back. It also shows the mouth and that the neck may curve up from the abdomen. --Pine✉ 05:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I understand why you like the alt, but I don't think that is a reason to oppose the original which shows the nudibranch from a different angle and with a better depiction of its natural habitat (and therefore has considerable EV also in the Bunaken article). Probably the alt could replace the current side-view image in the article. --ELEKHHT 07:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Conditional support original Criteria 7: "descriptive, informative and complete file description in English", please expand description further. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Conditions met, thanks for notifying me Armbrust. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I support the ALT... if we can count that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm late to the party on this one, but I would support the Alt as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Nembrotha cristata bunaken.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The alternative didn't have enough support at the end of the voting period. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see Adam and Wingtip saying they support both, Pine opposing the original and supporting the alt, and two late !votes which show a preference for the ALT. Elekhh did not mention the alt at all, while the other two only supported the original. Excluding the late !votes, that's Original 5-1, ALT 4-0. Just in case the numbers are unclear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just noting that the Alt was only included in the broader article about the genus but not the article about the species, that's why I abstained at this time. I added it now to the species article where I think it fits very well together with the currently promoted image. If it stays stable it might be worth re-nominating as a second FP. --ELEKHHT 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see Adam and Wingtip saying they support both, Pine opposing the original and supporting the alt, and two late !votes which show a preference for the ALT. Elekhh did not mention the alt at all, while the other two only supported the original. Excluding the late !votes, that's Original 5-1, ALT 4-0. Just in case the numbers are unclear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2013 at 07:05:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- The image was nominated before here, but it was not cropped properly. In this nomination, we have a cropped version of the image which has good quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Eurasian Sparrowhawk
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Pierre Dalous
- Support as nominator --Nikhil(talk) 07:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support good behavioral photo. --Pine✉ 05:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Pine --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Essentially per Pine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support nice image. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Accipiter nisus edit.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2013 at 09:21:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- Excellent depiction of the hill as seen from the historic centre of Quito
- Articles in which this image appears
- El Panecillo
- FP category for this image
- Urban
- Creator
- Cayambe
- Support as nominator --ELEKHHT 09:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Nice quality and good EV, but it would have been better if the whole hill was captured.--Nikhil(talk) 01:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. How can a picture of a hill not show the whole hill? I must be missing something that everyone else is seeing, hence why I don't oppose just yet; I'll wait for more votes. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The whole hill could only be shown from above, in which case you wouldn't see its height. By subjects of this scale, it is often necessary to have multiple images to get the 'complete picture'. In this case, the hill is notable because it is part of Quito. The image depicts the hill's appearance from the historic centre of the city, as people living in the city see it every day. Its aesthetic appeal is in the contrast between the regular street grid and the natural shape of the hill. --ELEKHHT 06:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a bad picture, a quality picture, I'm of the same mind as Wingtipvortex: whole hill would be superior. Background objects are "backgroundy" (distant, blue, not crystal). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2013 at 11:04:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- Eye catching. Seems to meet all criteria
- Articles in which this image appears
- Binh Quoi Tourist Village, Ho Chi Minh City
- FP category for this image
- Landscapes
- Creator
- Igdrasa
- Support as nominator --Commander Keane (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment/question This is a nice photo, but I'm unsure about what it actually depicts - is there a special significance to the canal and people boating on it? I note that they're wearing traditional dress, but this doesn't really stand out given the composition. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- To the above I add that the image is also somewhat soft.--WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per above. A better caption might help the EV. This might be a good Commons FP candidate. --Pine✉ 05:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note the photographer has commented on this FPC nomination's talk page. I have asked the nominator to copy the comment to here and I have asked for additional information on the nominator's talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIgdrasa&diff=566672937&oldid=566095503. I am very willing to change my vote depending on what additional information we get about what the photo shows. --Pine✉ 05:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Bog-standard vacation snapshot showing a 'Tourist village'. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Soft, and image description page tells me nothing. Criterion 7 not met. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2013 at 16:01:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- AVE Class 103, Madrid–Barcelona high-speed rail line
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
- Creator
- David Gubler
- Support as nominator --Nikhil(talk) 16:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment My only criticism of this picture is that it gives no impression of speed. 86.160.215.247 (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exposure time is very less. May be that is the reason we don't have any motion blur.--Nikhil(talk) 04:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment, leaning oppose There's a fair bit of empty space in this image, which detracts from its impact (for instance, the ditch and scrub in the foreground and all the railway lines behind the train). This is a high quality image with EV, but I don't think that it has the kind of visual impact which other FPs of trains have. For instance, the FPs File:SBB Re 460 Schottikon alternate crop.jpg, File:IORE beim Torneträsk.jpg and File:NSB Di 4 Saltfjell.jpg have a similar perspective on the train, but are more visually interesting. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the Alt is an improvement, but unfortunately it still lacks strong visual impact. I've played around with a few different crops as well, and couldn't get any of them to produce a better result. I think that the angle at which the photo was taken relative to the tracks and train is the underlying issue here. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Will try to keep it in mind in future nominations. Thank you.--Nikhil(talk) 11:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the Alt is an improvement, but unfortunately it still lacks strong visual impact. I've played around with a few different crops as well, and couldn't get any of them to produce a better result. I think that the angle at which the photo was taken relative to the tracks and train is the underlying issue here. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Original The image is good quality and has decent EV, but I think it is not the best WP has to offer, as there is no visual impact. Oppose Alt, composition is not good. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose both. Original not bad, but not great either. Alt crop makes composition poor, per Wingtipvortex. Too much empty space in original. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2013 at 20:16:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- In my humble opinion, one of the most dramatic photographs of the Armenian Genocide. An Armenian woman is trying to help her/a child as she lays dead in the middle of the Syrian desert. What is most interesting is that the child is dead within sight of help and safety of other people seen in the background. I presume that they are purposely neglecting the child so that she can die or that death was just so common that it was a normal sight. Over all, great EV and good quality for such an old photograph.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Armenian Genocide
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Proudbolsahye
- Support as nominator --Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment So to summarize your description: you have absolutely no idea what is going on in this photo. How do you know that this child is dead? -- mcshadypl TC 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- The death of the child and other details are provided by the United States government. Please see the link in the caption of the photo. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment the scan appears to be rather poor, and some restoration work would be welcome. That said, the image has a lot of EV and would likely get my support if in good condition. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support I could say the EV is great. The scan and photograph is pretty good quality considering the fact that it was shot in 1915. Chauahuasachca (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm getting an image size of 1500, which is fine, but this seems to have been increased in size, only making a soft image slightly softer. First source link doesn't link to anything. (LC # link works fine.) Date is 1915 on image description page, but where did this date come from? LOC states unknown date. I'm on the fence about the image. Needs work done to it for sure though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2013 at 14:42:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good resolution scan of the poster of a classic film, by a well known artist. High EV and good quality.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Vertigo (film), Saul Bass
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- Saul Bass
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks great. Very well-known poster. -- mcshadypl TC 19:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Alt 1 uploaded. There were some long fold marks that needed fixed. Support alt 1. Note the image may be a tiny bit overexposed, but I don't think it's particularly bad in this case. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support ALT1: Having uploaded a few featured posters myself, I'm aware of how hard it is to get good, free, non-JPG-artefacted posters. Though this is a bit more simple than most of our current featured stuff, it's still iconic and quite pleasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Film posters make great FPs, and the fact this is such a significant film gives really adds to it. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 However, I could have sworn this poster was red and not orange...is this certainly the original colour? Mattximus (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 |
First of all, let me apologise for the horrible formatting here. I couldn't get the alignments right without doing it this way.
Anyway, red does tend to fade to vermillion, but the current colour is also one that was in use. Now, given people's tendency to correct colours without access to originals, I'm not surprised it varies a bit online, but I did notice some hints of yellow ink while doing the restoration (see sample, left), so I'm pretty sure the red was meant to be on the vermillion side, and shouldn't be corrected too far towards "true" red. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC) |
- Support Alt 1 Google Image search offers a range of colors, from orange to red. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 very good EV, and great quality! --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 Just watched this movie for second time, awesome to see it here. Adam, why is "Restored by Adam Cuerden." in the image description when it already appears in author section? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I wanted to be clear it was a restoration, and distinguish the description from the old image's. You'll note it's followed by a brief description of the restoration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Vertigomovie restoration.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2013 at 15:05:27 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Good restoration of a high EV painting
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tennessee Centennial and International Exposition
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
- Creator
- The Henderson Litho. Co. (restoration by Trialsanderrors)
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, very nice. Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice indeed. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 18:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice restoration. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support It's a nice image. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tennessee Centennial Exposition 1897 (LOC ppmsca.03354).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2013 at 15:41:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Siegestor
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Der Wolf im Wald
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is overall very over-exposed, particularly in the bottom left corner due to the headlights. This image would be better served with a lower shutter speed, I think. -- mcshadypl TC 19:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder whether the very low shutter speed doesn't just allow us to focus more on the subject, rather than the inevitable handful of blurred cars? I'd be interested to hear what some of our regular photographers think of this shot. I love it, but I'm going to hold off support until I've heard some more views. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you, I prefer the long exposure in this case. Some people consider any and all blurring to be a bad thing, but I think visible cars in the foreground would be a big distraction. With a shorter shutter speed, even if you did 'freeze' the cars, you'd still have their headlights/tail lights shining prominently (and you'd probably have the added downside of higher noise due to high ISO and/or the foreground out of focus due to small depth of field with a wider aperture). At least a long exposure gives the feeling of flow around the monument. But I do agree, it's slightly too bright for my tastes. It seems basically 'correctly exposed' in terms of the luminosity curve, but sometimes scenes need to be brighter or darker to give the right ambiance, and I think this is an example of that. Just my opinion though. :) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder whether the very low shutter speed doesn't just allow us to focus more on the subject, rather than the inevitable handful of blurred cars? I'd be interested to hear what some of our regular photographers think of this shot. I love it, but I'm going to hold off support until I've heard some more views. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support I am not a professional photographer, but I can say that as a layperson with an eye for artistic detail and a sense of composition, this picture looks very good to me! If it meets all other technical criteria (properly licensed, image size, etc.) I see no reason aesthetically why it should not become a featured picture. The overexposure in the bottom left (if "over" is the right word) does not detract from its quality at all, for me. I think it's a great shot. KDS4444Talk 12:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good quality and very good EV. Blown highlights in the lights are to be expected of long, single-exposure night photography. The head/tail light trails make the image very dynamic. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Long exposure is not only an artistic means to focus on static objects in a dynamic environment, it also allows poor-light images at low ISO levels/graininess. Here it is a perfectly apt choice and very well executed. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Nicely done. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Siegestor München abends.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2013 at 21:54:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and resolution, improves readers understanding of library
- Articles in which this image appears
- Santa Clara, California
- FP category for this image
- places
- Creator
- DavidLeighEllis
- Support as nominator --DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Commment Do you think it would look better if we cropped to just above the word "Reference"? It's a little too much of a focus, in my opinion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Seems like very low EV for this photograph. Is there some reason this library is important to Santa Clara? What makes it more than just a photograph of a random building in the city? Mattximus (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I think there is little EV to this photograph, not because it does not show the library well, but because there is not a whole lot of discussion regarding the library in the article. That said, the image is of good technical quality. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. Unless this library is somehow significant, I don't really see why a photo of its interior has much EV. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. -- mcshadypl TC 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Suggest nominator reads the FP requirements. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2013 at 11:58:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- Image is of excellent quality and technical standard, conveys its subject matter concisely and completely, contains no artifacts, and still has "wow" factor.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Caenorhabditis elegans
- FP category for this image
- WP:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
- Creator
- KDS444 (nominator's Wikimedia acct. username)
- Support as nominator -- KDS4444Talk 11:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support I haven't error-checked it against other illustrations, but it looks pretty accurate off-hand. It's also beautiful work, with nice use of partial transparencies and gradients, suitable for textbook use. A great illustration of a very important model organism Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Adam! And please feel free to fact-check — my current employer is a microbiologist who specializes in this organism, and I had him vet the image before I put it up here for consideration. He said it looked very good. But the best independent verifiable resource for checking is probably the Wormatlas page on hermaphrodites. KDS4444Talk 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support quality and encyclopedic value both are fine to me. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Adam. Now go get this in a biology textbook! --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Part of the wow factor is that this shows how many offspring this self-fertilizing hermaphrodite species can produce as the eggs pass by the spermathecae and get fertilized. The drawing is pretty and unusual enough that it piques curiosity, and clear enough that it provides some answers. AndrewPapp (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Happy to accept this as accurate if it's been looked over by an expert. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very useful diagram, one minor comment, the arrow for the gut lumen sort of has two possible features it could point to, could you shift it slightly to the left to remove any possibility of confusion?Terri G (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done and done. Better? KDS4444Talk 10:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Superb diagram of a fascinating anatomy and physiology. IMHO this is exactly the sort of thing that FP should be about, not the endless stream of dime-a-dozen portraits and dull snapshots it seems to have become. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Is there an extra space after the ampersand and "anus" in "rectum & anus"? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why, yes there was. I have removed it. Please let me know if you spot any other such typos or errors-- I want this to be as perfect as possible. Thank you! KDS4444Talk 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Caenorhabditis elegans hermaphrodite adult-en.svg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Placed in the FP category Animals/Others. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 01:00:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- The previous nomination got up to 4 supports, but, well, we're in a bit of a slump just now with everyone on holiday, so a lot of things are underreviewed. I'm pretty sure this would have passed already in any more normal month. Hat tip to User:Brandmeister - I did the restoration, but he found and nominated the image the first time.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Apollo–Soyuz Test Project, July 1975, NASA, Space Race, Vance D. Brand
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
- Creator
- NASA, restoration by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Restoration looks good. Reasonable EV. Mattximus (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support nice Godhulii 1985 (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support as before--Nikhil(talk) 11:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support as before. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good EV--91.98.21.155 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Portrait of ASTP crews - restoration.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Lime butterfly photo set, dorsal and side views
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 06:28:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality photo pair. I just replaced a lower quality dorsal picture in the article with the one in this set. The lead image in this article File:Lime_Butterfly_Papilio_demoleus.jpg is already featured but it provides an off-center view and I think these photos add significant value to the article.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Papilio demoleus
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Jkadavoor, dorsal view cropped by Pine
- Support as nominator --Pine✉ 06:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support :- Good quality picture Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I like the lead image, I don't see anything wrong with it. These two are very pretty as well. Can all three be a set? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- The lead by Muhammad is a very good image (a bit too warm?); but two side views in a set is a bit inappropriate IMHO. I’ve no problem if you are suggesting a replace. JKadavoor Jee 13:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus UP by Kadavoor.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 06:48:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution, high quality, well illustrated. Used in several articles. Previous nomination was... odd.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pony Express, William Henry Jackson, +3
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
- Creator
- William Henry Jackson (images) and Howard R. Driggs (text); restored by Crisco 1492
- Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support excellent EV. Wow, last nom... what a train-wreck. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support It's good to see this back, without the train wreck. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ooh, too early in the morning for me to be hearing clackety puns. Not to rail on anyone, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support original (or any other restoration). I'm not so sure about the current restoration though. It seems to leave visible 60px clone marks to remove tiny specks of dirt where a very soft 12pt spot healing brush would have been quite sufficient. Also, I'm not even sure if those spots weren't in the 1950s reprint for an added vintage feel. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think I still have this file here. Where do you see the most blatant? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Multiple spots. From the looks of it, it seems the clone stamp was used throughout to blot out the spots. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I already went over my copy and I'm not seeing it. Do any of the other !voters see anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's some water damage in a couple areas. I think he's seeing that. The restoration could've stood being a bit more extensive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I got (most of?) them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, no. There are a number of locations where spots have been removed wholesale by using a large clone stamp, which leads to impurities being introduced to the copy that just weren't there in the original. For instance, to the right of the "1861" in the title is now a dark spot cloned there from somewhere else that now looks like a fingerprint. As I said, a small spot healing brush is a much better method to remove those tiny specks than a large clone stamp. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's some water damage in a couple areas. I think he's seeing that. The restoration could've stood being a bit more extensive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I already went over my copy and I'm not seeing it. Do any of the other !voters see anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Multiple spots. From the looks of it, it seems the clone stamp was used throughout to blot out the spots. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think I still have this file here. Where do you see the most blatant? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Pony Express Map William Henry Jackson.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 08:40:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unique picture of mother and pup of Indian palm squirrel. Mother squirrel shares its feeling with its pup, which is in a cage.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Indian palm squirrel, Animal communication, Emotion in animals
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Anton017
- Support as nominator --Anton017 (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Godhulii 1985 (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support nice capture of a rare moment.--Nikhil(talk) 12:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as-is. The caption is speculative and unencyclopaedic. No comment on the image's quality or appropriateness of black-and-white photography. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Quality is good, EV is great. Very "wow" image. I do not agree with the image being in B&W, it seems to me as a cheap way to add more emotion. If this image is impossible to retake, I'd overlook the B&W. Agree with Paul that the caption is not WP-material. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Note The caption is changed. --Anton017 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't see why a modern day nature picture has to be in B&W. What does it add in terms of EV? --Muhammad(talk) 14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Muhammad. I especially want to see an animal like this in color. If it's a human subject, this would be less important. -- mcshadypl TC 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a very powerful picture (and would not look out of place on an animal rights/liberation pamphlet, or the cover of a work looking at non-human emotion) but I have to agree that the EV is somewhat lacking. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 11:25:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think this picture taken from the top of the Tibidabo hill gives the best possible overview of the tower and its surroundings.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Torre de Collserola
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Felix König
- Support as nominator ---- Felix König ✉ 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Great EV, good quality. Despite showing the uniqueness of the structure quite well, the image does not wow me. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The focus of the photo is too blurry and should be in the center. -- mcshadypl TC 18:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. per Mcshadypl--Nikhil(talk) 01:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 23:16:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- The original nomination got very little feedback, but I think it's a very good image, so I've tweaked it a bit and have decided to renominate.
- Articles in which this image appears
- In no particular order: Saint George, Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War, History of the United Kingdom during World War I, Patronages of Saint George
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/WWI
- Creator
- Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I thought I had voted at the last one. Very good, I think. Love the dragon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - changed my mind, appropriate enough for web. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting. Like Crisco said, the dragon looks great. buffbills7701 00:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Love it. I like how cleaned up the text looks at the bottom as well. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not paying attention. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Britain Needs You at Once - WWI recruitment poster - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee Poster No. 108.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 23:57:28 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and technical quality, Austria-Hungary is underrepresented in our WWI collection. First nomination fell short — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Articles in which this image appears
- War bond
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I
- Creator
- Alfred Roller, restored by Crisco 1492
- Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Paper's a bit pink-tinted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - although if you could have a look at that tint. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Got that (sorry, been busy). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, though you could stand to clean some of the darker bits on the border up a bit more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose There are numerous war bond posters to choose from and this one doesn't seem to be particularly appealing or interesting. Brandmeistertalk 22:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2013 at 08:50:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- A Brady-Handy collection photo of a prominent politician? Yes please.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Levi P. Morton
- FP category for this image
- WP:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Brady-Handy, restoration by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I know that's how the shot was taken, but don't you think that's a bit too much white space? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Far easier to crop than to expand. We could crop a bit if we wanted, but this is the "default", as it were. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- True, I just recall that you are (in general) opposed to such changes in restoration. I'd probably support a cropped version, but right now that's a lot of wasted space for a FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I dont know about the ethics of cropping historical images. From an aesthetic POV, the original looks good, from an EV POV, a crop would suit better --Muhammad(talk) 10:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, where two images are shoved onto a plate anyway, and were obviously intended to be cropped somewhat, I don't object so much, so long as the approximate original is maintained. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I'd likely support a crop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can't edit this for a few days. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I'd likely support a crop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, where two images are shoved onto a plate anyway, and were obviously intended to be cropped somewhat, I don't object so much, so long as the approximate original is maintained. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I dont know about the ethics of cropping historical images. From an aesthetic POV, the original looks good, from an EV POV, a crop would suit better --Muhammad(talk) 10:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- True, I just recall that you are (in general) opposed to such changes in restoration. I'd probably support a cropped version, but right now that's a lot of wasted space for a FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Far easier to crop than to expand. We could crop a bit if we wanted, but this is the "default", as it were. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2013 at 17:37:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Albanian water frog
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Benny Trapp
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support nice find.--Nikhil(talk) 00:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support :- Good one Mydreamsparrow (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support; lovely image, but it's a shame the article's a stub. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Pristine – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:BennyTrapp Pelophylax shquipericus Montenegro.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2013 at 18:00:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sled dog racing
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
- Creator
- Rainer Lippert
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support - Decent quality, but the poles are awkwardly placed in the frame, damaging the composition. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 02:15:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Corona discharge, Corona ring
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
- Creator
- Nitromethane
- Support as nominator --Nikhil(talk) 02:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. This is in desperate need of an explanation to be useful. Was the photo taken in the daylight but with a very short exposure, or was it taken at night? Is the phenomenon visible only at long exposures but not with the naked eye? Was it taken with a some kind of filter, or are the colours and luminosity 'au naturel'? I suspect I know the answers to the questions (they're somewhat rhetorical), but it's a photo that needs explaining in the caption, otherwise we're not really sure what we're looking at. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, the picture was taken during the night to have more visual impact than the picture taken during a day as the discharge around the conductor has such brilliance that can be quite spectacular during the night. And the phenomenon is visible with the naked eye and I don't think any filter is required to capture this phenomenon.--Nikhil(talk) 05:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 08:46:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and high quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cornelis van Haarlem
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Vassil
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Frame appears to be in focus but not the painting itself. These images are difficult to capture, but not impossible. lightening could be better.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 08:51:49 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV, good quality and very good detail
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nine-banded armadillo
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Hans Stieglitz
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Doesn't stand out from its surroundings. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. Jujutacular (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose As said before, it blends with the background Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 08:55:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Western Bonelli's Warbler, Leaf warbler
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Kookaburra 81
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The bird looks spectacular, but the out of focus branch in the foreground spoils the photo somewhat (at least for FP status, IMO) Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and lighting. Brandmeistertalk 19:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 09:23:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Detailed view of Pomegranate seeds in a fresh fruit
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pomegranate
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- Anton
- Support as nominator --Anton017 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose -- Although the composition is good, hardly 2-3 seeds are in focus due to the shallow DOF. Sanyambahga (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not convinced that this actually does such a great job of illustrating the subject. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree ... To me, this looks a bit like a picture from a "Can guess what this is?" puzzle featuring familiar objects taken from strange angles. 86.130.66.152 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- This image would not make a good pomegranate photo, but would make a good detail photo of pomegranate arils. Tylerscribble (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 15:48:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, composition and EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Chandiroor Divakaran
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Augustus Binu
- Support as nominator --Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support good quality. Tomer T (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Funny expression. Good quality, EV, ok light --Muhammad(talk) 22:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Nikhil(talk) 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Charming portrait of an interesting subject. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good job! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Seeing the portrait automatically gave a smile! Good quality. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chandiroor Divakaran New DSW.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2013 at 04:07:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- The picture has QI and VI in Commons and the fruit is rarely known to people
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sonneratia caseolaris
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- Anton
- Support as nominator --Anton017 (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question what's with the off blue background, rather than a pure white one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Thanks, done. --Anton017 (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Shadows are still tinged blue, you seem to have lost some of them too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Thanks, done. --Anton017 (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2013 at 11:31:41 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another map to SVG conversion. Good source, straightforward EV, has a certain aesthetic quality as well. SVG format, so no size issues. I couldn't help this really being one of those maps where you can see only the general characteristics in thumbnail - the front lines are as bold as I thought possible without dominating the zoomed in version. Previous nomination (here) received two supports (plus me) and no opposes. Some changes were considered but I didn't feel anything needed to be changed.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Battle of the Somme, about a dozen other related or contingent battles.
- FP category for this image
- Map, diagrams and drawings
- Creator
- Grandiose; US military (for inset map, check description).
- Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- One of the best available for the Somme.Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support (apologies babe, I have't done this before)Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please bold your vote, Keith-264. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Solid work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Good work. To nitpick, the word "RESERVE" overlaps the box for RESERVE GOUGH, but I know how awkward SVG can be for this. (Hohum @) 16:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Nice map. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support SVG maps are worth! Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The map seems very simplistic and is not at all a Feature Image in my view.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- What further details would you be looking for in a map of this sort? J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Map of the Battle of the Somme, 1916.svg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2013 at 08:42:28 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and High EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Periyar River, List of tourist attractions in Kochi, Kerala, Bhoothathankettu
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Augustus Binu
- Support as nominator --Mydreamsparrow (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a bit overexposed. The resolution is also under what I would expect. Note that the featured picture criteria requires 1500px minimum on both height and width. Our panoramas are usually significantly larger than this. Jujutacular (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small as a panorama, it seems more like a cropped 10MP+ image. And i noticed a darker portion in the left-center, maybe due to stitching. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose blown out sky. --High Contrast (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2013 at 09:20:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Engaging composition, high quality and high EV - good demonstration of the painter occupation. An "action shot" of a daily task :)
- Articles in which this image appears
- House painter and decorator
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- Jorge Royan
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. An interesting composition and well taken, but I'm not sure it's particularly useful as an image. Having said that, I guess it shows that a painter and decorator does not necessarily use modern methods and equipment in many parts of the world, and for that reason helps with countering systematic bias towards western/modern content. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, but why do you think it's not very useful? Where does it lack in illustration? Tomer T (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because I find that unusual compositions, while interesting, are not as simple to understand or learn from. Ultra wide angles for architectural photography are often unavoidable due to logistical and geographic constraints, but I don't think that's the case for a photography of a painter and decorator where (almost) any composition is conceivable. Anyway, I haven't opposed it. I like it as a photo, I just don't know if the wide angle works to help in aiding understanding of what he's doing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, but why do you think it's not very useful? Where does it lack in illustration? Tomer T (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I like this picture as a picture, but I would query the claim of "high EV" (I understand "EV" to mean "encyclopedic value"). IMO the encyclopedic value of this is almost zero. However, as I say, it is a nice picture to look at. 86.128.6.77 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- When we have an encyclopedia article titled House painter and decorator and this is the lead image, I think the EV criterion is satisfied. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the case necessarily. There are plenty of poorly written and edited articles with poor lead images. Just because Wikipedia articles exist in a particular state, it doesn't follow that they are (or their lead image is) of high EV. We need to use our own judgement here rather than making presumptions about EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- According to the WP:Featured picture criteria: "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many." I'd say that it is pretty obvious that this image contributes strongly to the article that it is illustrating. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- IMO it contributes in a decorative way (which is no bad thing since almost any picture makes an article much more inviting), but not significantly in an information-imparting way (which was what I thought "EV" meant) since it shows nothing noteworthy about technique, equipment, etc., and, in fact, it is not even clear what he is doing. It is not clear that the brush is charged with paint, or whether paint is being applied to the wall, or whether he is brushing away dust, or what. 86.160.222.107 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- According to the WP:Featured picture criteria: "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many." I'd say that it is pretty obvious that this image contributes strongly to the article that it is illustrating. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the case necessarily. There are plenty of poorly written and edited articles with poor lead images. Just because Wikipedia articles exist in a particular state, it doesn't follow that they are (or their lead image is) of high EV. We need to use our own judgement here rather than making presumptions about EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- When we have an encyclopedia article titled House painter and decorator and this is the lead image, I think the EV criterion is satisfied. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Painters generally have a bucket of paint or whitewash along with the brush or roller, and it is kept within reach. That paint bucket is a prominent equipment which is not visible in this picture hence its EV for painter profession is diminished. Ahirwav (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This image well and truly deserves its FP status on Commons, but the cluttered composition significantly diminishes its EV for Wikipedia purposes I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support I see no EV problem here. As I've stated above, the image contributes strongly to the article it is illustrating, and, according to the featured picture criteria, that means it has high EV. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support I can see arguments for this image working both ways. Here's the thing for me... this is an engaging photograph of a boring (but important) task. This photo should draw a good number of people to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Although the composition is good, the image does not depict a typical house painting situation. There is neither a visible paint bucket nor a conventional ladder used by painters.Sanyambahga (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sanyambahga. In addition, the angle of viewing the painter is quite awkward. SpencerT♦C 04:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2013 at 06:38:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and high EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Auckland
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Christian Mehlführer
- Support as nominator ----Nikhil(talk) 06:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! Jujutacular (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well placed and executed image. Can't speak for its placement in the article, maybe that works for it maybe it doesn't, I can't tell. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Perfect! No visible stitch marks and already a FP in commons. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support very good. --Pine✉ 05:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:AucklandPano MC.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2013 at 08:26:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality pic of a prolific inventor.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Kia Silverbrook
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
- Creator
- David Clark and uploaded to Wikipedia by Velocidex
- Support as nominator --Nikhil(talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What's his connection to the opera house except of being Australian? Tomer T (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose EV can't make up for awful composition, distracting background, strange warm lighting (sunset maybe though). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment That's the western side of the Sydney Opera House, so this photo was taken at sunset. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, awful composition. 23:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, although it has a good EV, the Opera House distracts the eyes of the viewer. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Useful image, but not of FP standard: the composition is dull, and placing the Sydney Opera House in the background makes little sense. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2013 at 16:34:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Alte Oper
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Felix König
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Dark, blurry and not the greatest composition.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what do you mean with "dark"? I don't see any underexposed areas. -- Felix König ✉ 09:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The general lighting conditions are dark, rendering the image dull.Sanyambahga (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2013 at 20:55:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Edible Frog, List of amphibians and reptiles of Sweden
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Grand-Duc (edit by Niabot)
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
ConditionalSupport if both comments are addressed. Great picture, but there needs to be some clarification on the name. Is the frog Pelophylax kl. esculentus as in the article or Rana esculenta as in the caption? Is there an officially accepted name for this frog? I also believe the plant that the frog is sitting on should be linked if it is to be mentioned, Nymphaea should do if I'm correct. Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)- I made the link. Regarding the other question, the infobox in the article says that these names are synonyms. Tomer T (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- In this case I would stick with Edible Frog (Pelophylax kl. esculentus) as the name of the frog in the caption. I believe the synonym used here Rana esculenta is outdated. Mattximus (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Changed. Tomer T (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- In this case I would stick with Edible Frog (Pelophylax kl. esculentus) as the name of the frog in the caption. I believe the synonym used here Rana esculenta is outdated. Mattximus (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I made the link. Regarding the other question, the infobox in the article says that these names are synonyms. Tomer T (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Pine✉ 06:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question, leaning support: what are those blurred spots behind the frog? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I presume you mean the brighter ones? Pretty sure they're just light reflecting off water drops. You can see some of that in the focused area. Could be a bit of light-coloured dirt, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Support the yummy frog. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I presume you mean the brighter ones? Pretty sure they're just light reflecting off water drops. You can see some of that in the focused area. Could be a bit of light-coloured dirt, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2013 at 04:30:47 (UTC)
- Reason
- High enough resolution, good quality, well focused, notable individual. Image was taken when she was 13, meaning this image will retain EV for showing her at the age she became notable.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Maddison Elliott
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
- Creator
- Sport the Library (for the Australian Paralympic Committee)
- Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very high quality image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality, good EV. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Fabulous image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Could use a personality rights warning. As she is a minor, I would have preferred to know if consent was also provided in addition to the permission for use. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Have added personality rights. Are you talking about consent for general publication, or consent for publication through Wikimedia? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:140611 - Maddison Elliott - 3b - 2012 Team processing.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2013 at 14:09:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image is the first upload of the Hyles lineata to display the insect's distinctive appearance in such detail. Unique EV of all Hyles lineata images. There are supplementary angles shared on the Hyles lineata article. Let me know if I should add one to the FP, one is side view. Wikipedia is the first upload destination for this image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hyles lineata
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- tylerscribble
- Support as nominator --Tylerscribble (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry- as it's only used in a gallery, it's not really eligible for FP status. I'm also not so keen on the unnatural background, and the image quality is lacking; the bar for insect photography has been set high. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2013 at 20:04:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Kata Tjuta, Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Chmehl
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The rock looks hazy, and its a little small than regular Panoramas at just 1500px. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I really love this photo; I only wish the resolution was a bit larger. Jujutacular (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support It could have been larger, but 1500px is fine for me and is in line with the requirements. Brandmeistertalk 20:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2013 at 20:09:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and high quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hite Crossing Bridge, Utah State Route 95
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Chmehl
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great EV here. buffbills7701 22:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Lovely! Jujutacular (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Distortion from stitching. The crossing in reality is level, but seems arched in this image.Sanyambahga (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Yes, the image is beautiful, but the arching of the bridge due to stitching seems misleading. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Image quality is just superb, but I'll have to agree with Sanyambahga. The other image of the same bridge in the article doesn't distort the bridge.Nikhil(talk) 02:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice picture, but quite distorted. Mattximus (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If the original pictures are available, this may be salvageable. It looks decent enough up to the left side roadway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2013 at 20:13:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sipapu Bridge, Natural Bridges National Monument
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Dschwen
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice EV, beautiful! Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry on much of the right side of image. --Pine✉ 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks acceptable to me. Not perfect, but alright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2013 at 20:21:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Jalovec (mountain)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Chmehl
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, and an FP in commons! Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nikhil(talk) 02:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support would be better if the article had more detail but I think this is good enough. Good image sharpness. --Pine✉ 05:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Um, hasn't something gone wrong with the "fogginess" at the right of the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.108.14 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2013
- It's just one part's sunlit, the lower bit isn't. Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Jalovec northside MC.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2013 at 10:47:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- I think this picture taken from Victoria's View shows the best possible perspective for this motive. It was already elected FP in German Wikipedia as well as QI and VI on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Königsstuhl (Rügen)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Felix König
- Support as nominator ---- Felix König ✉ 10:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think theres nearly enough 'wow' in this photo. It's a fairly tight crop and doesn't show enough of the surroundings. I much prefer this photo taken from the same article. It's a better candidate for FP. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Both pictures have already been FPC in German Wikipedia. The result was 8:3 for my nomination against 3:8 for your suggestion of a "better candidate". -- Felix König ✉ 18:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for advising. I disagree with the conclusions that they reached though, I still think the other picture is better. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of actually depicting the subject, there is no question that the other picture is better. 86.169.185.13 (talk)
- Oppose - per Diliff. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2013 at 17:41:33 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution (brushstrokes, excluding sfumato techniques, are visible), and visually intriguing (composition, period clothing, foreground/background, etc) painting by Gilbert Stuart (self portrait FP), painted in 1782. This painting is important and notable because it was not only his first successfully completed full-length portrait, it brought recognition to Mr. Stuart and allowed him to open up his own studio. (According to our article, this painting was completed at Benjamin West's studio.)
- Articles in which this image appears
- The Skater + 3 others
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Gilbert Stuart
- Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Proportions seem right, I'm happy to trust the source as regards colour. It could probably be a little bigger (the original is nearly two and a half metres tall), but I'm happy that it's big enough. As far as I can see, it's a great candidate. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Looks solid, agree about resolution, love having notable paintings at FpC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Pretty much per Crisco. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Also agree with resolution being a little on the low side, but exceeds standard set. Mattximus (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:GSskater.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2013 at 22:25:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- A high resolution and good quality depiction of a beautiful building, with few images in Wikimedia
- Articles in which this image appears
- University of Helsinki Botanical Garden
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Alvesgaspar (talk)
- Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Although some parts of it look motion blurred (or perhaps aberration from the edge of the frames). However, the high resolution makes this a relatively academic point. I would have liked to see more of the foreground as it's slightly unbalanced IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support looks fine to me. Compositionally OK although Diliff raises good points about how it could be improved. There are some blown highlights but that is pretty much unavoidable. dllu (t,c) 04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Helsinki July 2013-14.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2013 at 08:20:10 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- High resolution, good quality, notable painting
- Articles in which this image appears
- Portrait of Sebastián de Morra +3
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Diego Velázquez
- Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. And ok.. I'll be the first to say it. Tyrion Lannister. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful painting, scan looks good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good scan, could be higher resolution, but still exceeds the standard set. Mattximus (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tyrion Lannister came to mind as well; some things can't be helped. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Diego Velázquez – El bufón el Primo (Museo del Prado, 1644).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2013 at 10:17:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality. Important parts have good sharpness.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cigarette smuggling
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
- Creator
- High Contrast
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tylerscribble (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Nikhil(talk) 01:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Frame is clipped, book is off centre. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Is it some historical book that was badly damaged? I think the caption should mention it. Brandmeistertalk 11:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like a French translation of the Iliad (or a book heavily referencing it), c. 18th century based on the fonts and paper. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ha. Nailed it: c. 1788 translation by Pierre-Louis-Claude Gin. Search for "Ceux qu'Hector immola" on http://iliadeodyssee.texte.free.fr/aatexte/gin/iliadgin/iliadgin19/iliadgin19.htm or see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7IdAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22Ceux+qu%27Hector+immola%22&source=bl&ots=w8hq3c1Ibt&sig=HM7OYsHXj3EUuc9EnQqnyOB0Z8U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2GgNUpSlOMXv0gWfo4GACQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Ceux%20qu%27Hector%20immola%22&f=false - Probably not particularly valuable if not illustrated. If it was, the person who so mangled it should be hurt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. Brandmeistertalk 08:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ha. Nailed it: c. 1788 translation by Pierre-Louis-Claude Gin. Search for "Ceux qu'Hector immola" on http://iliadeodyssee.texte.free.fr/aatexte/gin/iliadgin/iliadgin19/iliadgin19.htm or see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7IdAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=%22Ceux+qu%27Hector+immola%22&source=bl&ots=w8hq3c1Ibt&sig=HM7OYsHXj3EUuc9EnQqnyOB0Z8U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2GgNUpSlOMXv0gWfo4GACQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Ceux%20qu%27Hector%20immola%22&f=false - Probably not particularly valuable if not illustrated. If it was, the person who so mangled it should be hurt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like a French translation of the Iliad (or a book heavily referencing it), c. 18th century based on the fonts and paper. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Adam (particularly his last line about mangling people who mangle valuable books) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Slightly hesitant support Good image, though I wish a corner wasn't cut off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Agreed with Adam, I regret that missing info as well. But completely fascinating and good EV. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cigarette smuggling with a book.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2013 at 02:01:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- It is of high quality and has a great view of the animal.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Galápagos Fur Seal
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- D. Gordon E. Robertson
- Support as nominator --LittleJerry (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Is it just me, or is this a mite oversaturated? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, I'm not really feeling this one. The focus seems a little off, the framing is very tight, it does seem over-saturated. Also, what's the gash on his lower back? It's definitely a very useful picture for the article, but I don't think it's quite FP-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the spot's a scar, but other points stand. Oppose per Milburn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2013 at 14:51:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Gemini Residence
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Bob Collowân
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks pretty decent. Like all the detail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. This picture gives the impression that the upper storeys slightly overhang the lower ones. Is that the case in reality? If not then it is somewhat misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.108.14 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2013
- As you say, it is an impression only resulting from the slightly too tight framing, and because our eyes are stupid. --ELEKHHT 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's because our eyes are stupid. In my opinion it is because, from this apparent position, the top of the building would naturally appear to be slightly narrower, due to perspective effects. Because there is no such narrowing in the picture, we assume that the building actually widens slightly, which would be a correct assumption in a real-world situation. 81.159.111.248 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note that perspective control is common, and has been so far considered acceptable at FPC. --ELEKHHT 00:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think that adjusting the perspective is OK when it corrects a camera artefact/limitation to create a natural-looking aspect, but when it breaks the natural perspective, and makes things appear distorted, I think it is a mistake.* However, I am not a technical expert and it is not clear to me whether this photo has been "corrected" or is simply taken from a greater distance than appears, at which distance the perspective effect would naturally be less. 86.160.217.67 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC) *Unless done deliberately to create a special effect, of course. I am talking about pictures that are supposed to faithfully document the subject.
- Note that perspective control is common, and has been so far considered acceptable at FPC. --ELEKHHT 00:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually in this picture the upper storeys do overhang the lower ones by about 5 to 10 pixels. picture. It appears to be a pincushion distortion. dllu (t,c) 04:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's because our eyes are stupid. In my opinion it is because, from this apparent position, the top of the building would naturally appear to be slightly narrower, due to perspective effects. Because there is no such narrowing in the picture, we assume that the building actually widens slightly, which would be a correct assumption in a real-world situation. 81.159.111.248 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- As you say, it is an impression only resulting from the slightly too tight framing, and because our eyes are stupid. --ELEKHHT 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support Nice picture with good lighting. It also provides a good level of detail and EV. Weak support because of the tight framing. --ELEKHHT 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2013 at 16:37:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- The recent nomination of an uncropped version was rather stymied by me uploading it - but not a PNG version - literally half an hour before I flew to Hong Kong for Wikimania. This made the request to crop it rather difficult. I'm back in Edinburgh now, so can finally deal with the requests.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Levi P. Morton
- FP category for this image
- WP:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Brady-Handy, restoration by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Crop much more useful on encyclopedia, image very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Good crop, good EV. Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jujutacular (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Levi Morton - Brady-Handy portrait - standard crop.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2013 at 19:53:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Iconic species, beautiful composition, illustrates all the key features well. The lead image of a current candidate at FAC.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Atlantic Puffin
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, nice bird deserving its own FP star. Brandmeistertalk 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nikhil(talk) 05:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Sanyambahga (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Mediran (t • c) 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I know it was probably done because of the "rule of thirds" thing, but I would strongly prefer a tighter crop on this particular image. I find the extensive blurry background on the left side of the image to be distracting without adding anything at all aesthetically. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. It's not all about the rule of thirds, but also lead room. Aesthetically, the current crop gives the impression of the puffin looking out to sea. If it were cropped, we would instead have the impression of the puffin looking at the edge of a frame- much less visually interesting. The wide crop also serves to give an excellent impression of the puffin's natural habitat; upon a small piece of land on a cliff, next to the sea. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per J Milburn -- mcshadypl TC 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong support WOW. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Papageitaucher Fratercula arctica.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2013 at 20:29:23 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good resolution and nice evening scenery.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Albert Bridge, London, List of crossings of the River Thames
- FP category for this image
- Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Diliff
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support very nice. Nikhil(talk) 02:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Holy mother of... support. If our photographs are getting this big, and this sharp, we might as well try for a one gigapixel image and say "take that Google" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support But as for EV, should this picture not be in the infobox instead of buried in the article? It is superior to the low resolution photograph currently there. Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wide images are often a bad idea in infoboxes; indeed, some infoboxes don't even allow you to resize. Ideally, I suppose, we'd want something like looking across the bridge from one bank for the infobox, as that'd fit best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, however the image already found in the infobox is almost identical in proportions to the one proposed here but of inferior quality. Just a comment, support not conditional on this change. Mattximus (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Aye, I noticed that, but I'm not sure screwing up the good photo is a good solution. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, however the image already found in the infobox is almost identical in proportions to the one proposed here but of inferior quality. Just a comment, support not conditional on this change. Mattximus (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wide images are often a bad idea in infoboxes; indeed, some infoboxes don't even allow you to resize. Ideally, I suppose, we'd want something like looking across the bridge from one bank for the infobox, as that'd fit best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, is there any chance of improving Commons' large image viewer so it doesn't break on these very large images? It'd make it far easier for most of us to see and appreciate them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Some superb night photography. Jujutacular (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Albert Bridge, London - Oct 2012.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2013 at 02:12:54 (UTC)
- Reason
- A visually captivating picture that captures the interior assuetudes of period architecture.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mosque, Prayer, Architectural style, Hypostyle, Mosque of Uqba
- FP category for this image
- Places
- Creator
- Passionné d'architecture
- Support as nominator --QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Perspective distortion and high saturation. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- The chromatic saturation is the very reason I nominated this image. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support High quality picture with beautiful light and colors, interesting details. This picture shows wonderfully the impressive interior of the mosque. Quincy2010 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Something is off with the saturation (?). Look at the books on the lower right. They are glowing white. Mattximus (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2013 at 02:18:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image struck me as particularly alluring
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mosque, Jama Masjid, Delhi, Gyula Germanus
- FP category for this image
- Places
- Creator
- Ashcouunter
- Support as nominator --QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - primary issues are 1) the angle and perspective are odd and 2) the sky around the sun is so blown that it is solid white with strange artifacting and it leaves the rest of the scene dark. Chris857 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't feel the perspective and angle utilized has a depreciative effect on the image. What exactly do you mean by "blown". Blurry? Additionally, the darkened hue effect is the phenotype of this picture, and the reason I feel it could make a featured picture. Anyway, thank you for your constructive response. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - low EV as there is no light on the subject. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Chris857, moreover hue has nothing to do with an article related to Mosque. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your correct, it doesn't. It just makes for a captivating image. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose HDR makes the picture look too artificial and gives moving objects a very obvious blur behind them. This perspective also isn't ideal. -- mcshadypl TC 21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting is very dark, hard to clearly see mosque. Also obstructed by birds. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, backlighting and gigantic blown highlight (i.e., the sun) completely ruin this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2013 at 17:47:28 (UTC)
- Reason
- A fine lithographic poster from right at the start of the speedway's operation
- Articles in which this image appears
- Indianapolis Motor Speedway, History of Indianapolis. Both are recent additions, but, I believe, uncontroversial.
- FP category for this image
- Does Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Sport seem right to everyone else?
- Creator
- Otis Lithograph Co., restoration by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Borders look a little dirty. Otherwise quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- That border was one of the dirtiest I ever dealt with. It's lightyears better than it was, but, after about five hours of working on the border alone, I decided a little dirty was acceptable. =) As you know, I use GIMP; I think Photoshop might have some automations that speed up border-fixing, so if you want to have a look, I'd appreciate it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Will see what I can do, since tonight I've got free internet.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Something's up. Have included what I played with to get the borders (in my mind) a little cleaner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll happily Support Alt 1. Thanks! Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Something's up. Have included what I played with to get the borders (in my mind) a little cleaner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Will see what I can do, since tonight I've got free internet.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- That border was one of the dirtiest I ever dealt with. It's lightyears better than it was, but, after about five hours of working on the border alone, I decided a little dirty was acceptable. =) As you know, I use GIMP; I think Photoshop might have some automations that speed up border-fixing, so if you want to have a look, I'd appreciate it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Support, with a preference for ALT1. Very nice restoration, Adam, and a field we don't have many FPs in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, prefer alt1. Jujutacular (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1- very nice job.-Godot13 (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 - P. S. Burton (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 Stunning, kinetic poster. Good job both of you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Indianapolis Motor Speedway - Otis Lithograph Co. border edit.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2013 at 00:07:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- This high quality image adds significantly to the articles in which it appears, including the article for the Alabama Theatre. The image successfully illustrates the physical artistic beauty of its topic, the organ console, to the point in which viewers want to read the article about Theatre Organs, where the image also appears. This work is in the public domain.
- Articles in which this image appears
- FP category for this image
- Category:Pipe organ
- Creator
- Altairisfar
- Support as nominator --Billertl (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Opppose Sadly, it's under the minimum size for Featured Pictures (1500x1500px) and it's rather dimly lit. Whilst a photo of the organ is certainly featureable, this isn't quite there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Adam Cuerden.Nikhil(talk) 15:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy close as below size requirements. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2013 at 08:04:05 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution DVD rip of a notable film, public domain, so old that there's no advertising concerns
- Articles in which this image appears
- How a Mosquito Operates
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- Winsor McCay
- Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Notable, and, while it has the jerky repetetiveness a lot of very early cartoons do - McCay was, I believe, one of the first animators, and tended to narrate over the films as a vaudiville act, so there's often some long pauses for when he spoke. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well that was disturbing.
Oppose....only joking. Support. I do have a question though. In the article it says, "The paper called the film 'a marvelous arrangement of colored drawings', referring to the final explosive sequence (which McCay had hand-painted red)." Is there a reason this version is all black instead of having the original red at the end? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)- Paging Curly Turkey, who'd know much more than I about that question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- The original was entirely black-and-white. McCay hand-painted the red onto the actual frames of the film, something he did on File:Winsor McCay, the Famous Cartoonist of the N.Y. Herald and His Moving Comics - Little Nemo (1911).webm earlier. There was (most likely) only one coloured version made, and it was made for McCay's vaudeville show. McCay's films have been poorly preserved—Canemaker gives the story in his McCay bio, and it makes it seem a miracle any of them have survived at all. At least one film has been lost entirely, and some others survive only in fragments. I assume the coloured version of Mosquito was one of the cans of film that was discovered that had to be destroyed before it spontaneously combusted, if it survived even that long. There was a live-action prologue to Mosquito that has been entirely lost as well, and not one of the original drawings have survived, either. It may even be that not all of the animated portion has survived—notice how abrupt the ending is? Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Paging Curly Turkey, who'd know much more than I about that question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support as uploader, though I hope this nomination doesn't detract from potential nominations for File:Winsor McCay, the Famous Cartoonist of the N.Y. Herald and His Moving Comics - Little Nemo (1911).webm or File:Winsor McCay (1918) The Sinking of the Lusitania.webm, which I think are stronger contenders and have higher levels of interest. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, no detraction from future nominations of different films (different EV) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2013 at 01:36:51 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good resolution, nice and sharp, fairly interesting for an official portrait. I've had to remove a bit of dust and some hairs (this photo seems to have been taken in the late 80s). Previous nom was just short.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Dale D. Myers, List of Administrators and Deputy Administrators of NASA
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
- Creator
- Uncredited NASA photographer; restoration by Crisco 1492
- Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support looks like it's from the 80s, but colours are likely to be faithful to the source. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's his official portrait from when he was deputy director ('86-'89). I didn't touch the colours during my restoration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Works for me. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice portrait. – Billertl (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice work!Nikhil(talk) 15:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Dale D. Myers - GPN-2002-000097.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2013 at 16:34:22 (UTC)
- Reason
- A single image demonstrating the entire urbanscape of a city.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Dieppe
- FP category for this image
- Urban
- Creator
- Fabian Bürger
- Support as nominator --Sanyambahga (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Another one of several recently that seems to misrepresent its subject. It appears from this picture that the coastline begins to curve quite tightly to the left, but Google Maps shows this is not the case. 86.160.212.162 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2013 at 21:19:23 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Heddal stave church
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Micha L. Rieser
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Slightly soft, but not so much to keep me from supporting. Nice photo. Jujutacular (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice lighting, interesting subject. --ELEKHHT 04:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Jujutacular. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Might be a smidgen oversaturated, but, if it is, it's only a tiny bit. Excellent photo. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Sanyambahga (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Stavechurch-heddal.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2013 at 05:13:41 (UTC)
- Reason
- A very high EV image of the 2013 Moore tornado. Freely licensed (taken by me). Not perfect technical composition but high resolution (I will say, it's really hard to focus on the minor details of composition when there's an EF5 tornado nearby).
- Articles in which this image appears
- 2013 Moore tornado, Tornado outbreak of May 18–21, 2013, Tornadoes of 2013, Moore, Oklahoma, Supercell
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
- Creator
- Ks0stm
- Support as nominator --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I should probably complain about the chromatic fringing, but, screw it. It's a picture of a highly notable tornado that's freely licensed. Support original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Adam: this is a competently executed and dramatic photo of a notable topic with strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question: How would everyone feel about a crop? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the general policy question, but if better pictures of a specific event exist "out there" (for example [[1]]) but not in wikicommons, should the lesser photograph still be promoted to featured article? And for the record support cropped Alt. Mattximus (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/05/tornado.jpg){kind=link}
- As a general rule, remember we can only use free-licensed images here. If there's a better free-licensed image, that's a major problem. Now, i'm not an expert in tornado photography, but I'm going to guess that image you linked was likely taken with very high-speed film, since I wouldn't expect a tornado - by definition something made up of very fast-moving and thus fast-changing winds - to look that sharp without a very fast shutter speed. I may be wrong on that, but, if correct, this may well better depict what it would look like if you're there.
- However, as I said, I'm not sure about any of that.
- Now, what I can say is that the mere existence of a better photo Wikipedia can never use probably isn't a huge obstacle to FPC. Many pictures of celebrities we have at FP are great photos, but not as good as professional publicity shots, for insance. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the excellent and timely reply, much appreciated! Mattximus (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with what you said for the most part but with one note: How a tornado looks in a photograph can vary greatly based upon where the photographer is in relation to the tornado, overall storm, and lighting (the sun), as well as the overall structure of the storm and tornado. In this instance I was located to the southeast of the tornado. The reason the tornado is less well defined as in the other photograph is because by this point in its life cycle (about 5-10 minutes later than the other photo) rain had started to wrap around the tornado (examples for comparison). Within five minutes of my photo the tornado was hardly visible through the rain. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support prefer alt.Nikhil(talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support with a preference for the alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't actually care much for the crop. It feels cluttered. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree: I think that the crop takes away some of the drama in the original. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel the extra road shifts focus away from the tornado and makes it feel more distant from the photographer. But I didn't oppose the original, so the original can still count my !vote as a support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree: I think that the crop takes away some of the drama in the original. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't actually care much for the crop. It feels cluttered. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Original. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- The original has 6 supports, while the edit only 5. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2013 at 09:14:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, List of Chiefs of Naval Operations educated at the United States Naval Academy
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military
- Creator
- United States Department of Defense
- Support as nominator --Nikhil(talk) 09:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am horribly disappointed in this photo. There's no restoration needed, so all I can do is Support, instead of grabbing it as a restoration project. ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Crystal. It maybe appears slightly noisy to me? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe this was done on film. May be wrong, though - Once you get past 1950 or so, I know a lot less about photography. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Good find. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good. Mattximus (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Michael Mullen, CJCS, official photo portrait, 2007.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013 at 10:27:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- A very high resolution and good quality picture of a superb Neo-Renaissance building in Helsinki. The best depiction available in Wikimedia, I believe
- Articles in which this image appears
- House of the Estates
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Alvesgaspar (talk)
- Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice. Brandmeistertalk 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support although a part of me would like a bit on each side, but I guess that's just because the shape isn't quite usual. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Billertl (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice pic to me. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support The crop is very tight, but otherwise the image does justice to the subject. Sanyambahga (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Promoted File:Helsinki July 2013-15.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013 at 14:10:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- has high technical standard, illustrates the subject in a compelling way.
- Articles in which this image appears
- forest inventory, surveying, laser rangefinder, geographic information system
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology
- Creator
- Claudiusmm
- Support as nominator --Fgnievinski (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Looks like one of those invariable stock photos. Would have higher EV in, ya know, a forest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Crisco. Staged, looks like a poor magazine advertisement. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty good for a staged shot, but agree some appropriate background would have turned this from good to clear support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013 at 18:38:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and high quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Grande Arche, Johan Otto von Spreckelsen, La Défense
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- User:Atoma
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Copyright violation. No Freedom of Panorama in France, US doesn't recognise FOP for statues or monuments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so US FOP applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. --ELEKHHT 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Does that extend to a building in Paris though? If copyright status is OK (and I hope that it is), I'm afraid that I'm going to oppose as the EV isn't strong here - from having visited this building, it's key features are that it's really, really big, and that its the centrepiece of the entire La Défense precinct. This image doesn't illustrate either point well as the fountains dominate the composition. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- It can be hosted on en.wiki, but you should not use it if you're in France. Note that the deletion request has been now withdrawn. Otherwise agree with your critique about limited EV. --ELEKHHT 01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for that clarification. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- It can be hosted on en.wiki, but you should not use it if you're in France. Note that the deletion request has been now withdrawn. Otherwise agree with your critique about limited EV. --ELEKHHT 01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Does that extend to a building in Paris though? If copyright status is OK (and I hope that it is), I'm afraid that I'm going to oppose as the EV isn't strong here - from having visited this building, it's key features are that it's really, really big, and that its the centrepiece of the entire La Défense precinct. This image doesn't illustrate either point well as the fountains dominate the composition. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so US FOP applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. --ELEKHHT 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
| Speaks to a wider issue. Please bring it to the village pump. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment: Elekhh's claim that this image "can be hosted on en.wiki" is without foundation. Our policies on this matter, unlike the policies on Commons, are inconsistent and/or absent. If you wish to refute my claim, please provide a link to a policy page which makes the English Wikipedia's stance on FOP clear. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Already did (in that collapsed part), you just need to chill down and read. Also for civility's sake please try avoid offending me by making unsubstantiated claims. I suggest we stop this discussion here, take a break, and re-convene at a more appropriate forum (village pump, FPC talk page), as suggested earlier. --ELEKHHT 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, the page you linked, says nothing about FOP. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not realise that even if you follow from there "Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law" there is still no direct link to § 120 (linked in my very first comment on this page), which is the US version of "Freedom of Panorama" for buildings. --ELEKHHT 13:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you so keen to have this argument here? I could offer a response, but that's just going to lead to this thread being collapsed as well. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not realise that even if you follow from there "Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law" there is still no direct link to § 120 (linked in my very first comment on this page), which is the US version of "Freedom of Panorama" for buildings. --ELEKHHT 13:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, the page you linked, says nothing about FOP. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Already did (in that collapsed part), you just need to chill down and read. Also for civility's sake please try avoid offending me by making unsubstantiated claims. I suggest we stop this discussion here, take a break, and re-convene at a more appropriate forum (village pump, FPC talk page), as suggested earlier. --ELEKHHT 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)