Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2023

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


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

Paço Imperial

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2023 at 01:45:20 (UTC)

Original – Paço Imperial, the official workplace of the monarchs of Brazil during the royal and imperial eras

Reason: High quality, high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Brazilian imperial family
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Donatas Dabravolskas

Support as nominator – Vinícius O. (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly not FP standard - chromatic aberration, out of focus, perspective distortion. MER-C 10:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - That Nikon 16-35 mm lens is known for having poor edge sharpness at 16 mm, see [1]. Wide-angle zooms can't reach the image quality of fixed-focal-length WA lenses. --Janke | Talk 11:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is your ninth open nomination. Far too many I think Vinícius O.. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Vinícius O. (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MER-C – Choliamb (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully Oppose due to the expressed optical flaws (chromatic aberration and out of focus on the edges, especially on the left side). Otherwise, it would have been a very nice shot with favourable lighting for both the imperial building and the skyscraper. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grey shrikethrush

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2023 at 15:03:58 (UTC)

Original – Colluricincla harmonica harmonica

Reason: High resolution, illustrates article well.
Articles in which this image appears: Grey shrikethrush
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: John Harrison

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not one of his best. Bird is looking away. Hasn't been put up for FP on Commons yet. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When it comes to birds, one of JJ's "not his best" can still readily be FP worthy. In this case, it appears that the focus was slightly off (beak and eye appears slightly out of focus), but given the resolution, focal distance, and size of the bird, I don't think it's a deal breaker. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Essentially monochromatic hues result in minimal contrast with background. Doesn't meet Criterion 3, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banz Abbey

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2023 at 15:09:21 (UTC)

Original – Drone image of Banz Abbey

Reason: Recently featured on Commons. Note discussion of the one oppose vote - the abbey is surrounded by "no drone" areas.
Articles in which this image appears: Banz Abbey
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Ermell

Support as nominator – MER-C 15:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vinícius O. (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting discussion at the Commons about the drone restrictions. Hats off to the creator for respecting the restriction, even if it meant having to crop the original image because he couldn't get any closer. (I am unimpressed by the argument that there are "so many points in Germany where, in theory, drones are not allowed" that we should all just feel free to ignore such restrictions whenever it suits us to do so.) Choliamb (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lion-hearted85 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kloster Banz Luftbild-20220921-RM-122046.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human karyotype

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2023 at 17:10:00 (UTC)

Original – Karyogram of human genome

Reason: Quality image of human karyogram, it gives an overview of the human genome. The image is used in numerous articles (50+). There is a SVG version, but the SVG is not used in any articles (it has rendering issues). If and when the SVG replaces this file, then we can do a delist and replace nom. I had an easier time enlarging this file with ZoomViewer [2], which is linked to on the file page. Currently at Commons FPC as well.
Articles in which this image appears: Human genome, Karyotype, + many more
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator: Mikael Häggström

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Visual information is not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify which featured picture criteria does this candidate image not meet? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about No.3 "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way". I feel uncompelled. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally kept any prose out of the image in order to keep it relatively language neutral, and indeed that makes it not readily intelligible without reading the image caption in each article. Still, in this case, I think that sense of incomprehensibility is a valuable impression in itself, as the complexity of the human genome is indeed daunting and, still today, largely enigmatic. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the criterion is "helps readers to understand an article", not "readily intelligible to general readers/viewers". Bammesk (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We need more FPs that are encyclopedic scientific illustrations, relative to the huge proportion currently taken by postcard views, charismatic megafauna, and old poster scans. This is a good example: informative, detailed, and well laid out. Incidentally, the kneejerk opposition to including any such content, on display above, is a large part of why my recent participation in FPC has been so limited. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the image tells me nothing. My cognitive facilities are quiescent, and my knees aren't jerking -- Sca (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't oppose, but it is impolite to call a reasoned oppose a 'kneejerk reaction'. I'm capable of understanding many scientific diagrams, but I don't think this enhances the article enough for it to be FP. Without any text, I look at the image and click away. That is not what you want for a top-notch image in an encyclopaedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Text in illustrations is often helpful, but is not uniformly a positive thing: for instance, it makes them much more difficult to internationalize, compared to illustrations where the relevant text is presented in a caption. Have you ever opposed a photograph because it was lacking text? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had someone comment (couldn't oppose as they were an IP) against a nomination because the scale was not labeled on the photograph itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning support - That is massive, to the point that you could probably print this on a full sheet of A2 paper and still be downsizing. How much information would be lost by reducing it to, say, 60% of its current size? (Honestly, it's a shame the SVG has rendering issues...) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, with this type of image, sometimes there is more to it than visual display, printing and such. Sometimes minute details are incorporated as a means of tabulating data (or information) precisely. That way the image can be enlarged on a computer screen and the data read off the image precisely. I am not an expert in genetics, but I see lots of grid marks, so that might be the case. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. My question was mainly driven by the fact that, even at 60 percent resolution, the text was perfectly legible on my display and it felt as though no fine details were being lost (the reference to the A2/poster size was mainly to highlight just how many pixels were there). Given that, due to the resolution, a lot of browsers have trouble loading the image, I was simply wondering if a smaller size would be workable to improve accessibility. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With slight worries about how it handles the sex chromosomes - it seems a bit... redundant to have both an XY and XX set without any obvious difference in the three X's, Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 14:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Human karyotype with bands and sub-bands.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messier 83

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2023 at 16:22:36 (UTC)

Original – Messier 83, by Hubble Space Telescope

Reason: High resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: Messier 83
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would prefer an image showing the entire galaxy (example: [3], or this: [4]) - this feels too cropped and significantly reduces EV. --Janke | Talk 17:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I am Ok with the EV, per article editors' choice. The high resolution is a plus. Bammesk (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Crop works fine for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Crop works well for me, too, it makes the picture focused, and the resolution is quite impressive. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Guidestones

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2023 at 15:19:50 (UTC)

Original – The Georgia Guidestones, an "American Stonehenge"

Reason: One of the big eccentricities of America was bombed last year. Given we now can't get more pictures of them, I think the images we have are now extremely valuable
Articles in which this image appears: Georgia Guidestones
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
Creator: Bubba73

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded 10 photos I took one day. I took one more that has my wife standing next to it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Bubba73: Thank you so much for that. They're great photos, and we'd struggle to replace them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Technically, there are a few "woulda, shoulda, couldas"; less lens distortion, less tight crop, etc. But that's moot now that the monument is gone, and so I would support this on technique and quality. It is well lit, very encyclopedic, and irreplacable. What is the copyright status of the work itself, though? The rusty part of my brain that dealt with copyright questions is telling me that FOP doesn't cover three-dimensional artwork in the United States. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I corrected the lens distortion with DxO PhotoLab on the RAW file, but there is perspective distortion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies; I've only taken my camera out rarely, and am rusty on a lot of the terminology. I was referring primarily to the warping of the grass and dirt at the bottom edge of the image; the monument itself looks fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. For some reason, I was using my 35mm lens, which does enhance perspective distortion. Normally I would use a lens with a longer focal length and get farther back, which would reduce the perspective distortion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - For sure! I know I nearly retired my 18-35 mm because of the distortion. Any which way, glad to have this here. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
Think this comes under "no copyright notice" Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 07:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to the Hirtle Chart, there doesn't really seem to be anything for works of sculpture (it explicitly states "This table is for image and text works"). Assuming that the table for "Works except sound recordings and architecture" also applies to sculpture, the creator of the Guidestones had five years to register a claim if no notice was included with the sculpture. I'll see if I can find anything for "Robert Christian", "Elberton Granite Finishing Company", or "Guidestones". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After reviewing the LOC Copyright catalogue, I have found nothing for the finishing company, only conspiracy books for the Guidestones, and a series of books on Bayesian statistics by Christian Robert (nothing for Robert Christian). I am satisfied that there is no copyright registration for this sculpture, and based on available photographs there appears to have been no notice included with it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment Might be able to crop something better out of File:The Georgia Guidstones.jpg.©Geni (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given it a go, but honestly the fact that much of the monument is in shadows makes me feel that it's an inferior alternative (as an aside... that image is pretty good for a cell phone). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah its a bit annoying that we have a bunch of photos that would be great if they weren't over processed.©Geni (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I despise cells and their overprocessing, even with manual mode. Just wish I could get my camera into concerts... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like the fact that this one shows through the sculpture, but on the downside: (1) it is in shadow, and (2) it isn't very sharp. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – ~~the bottom left corner needs to be cloned.~~ I also support what's proposed by Geni. Bammesk (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: Should be done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 10:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note File:Georgia Guidestones, alternate.jpg is the other photo I took, except that I blurred out my wife. It shows the geometry a little better, but it has some drawbacks. She thinks the other one is better. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roosilawaty

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2023 at 02:53:07 (UTC)

Original – Indonesian film actress Roosilawaty in a promotional silver-print image

Reason: Excellent, high quality image of an Indonesian film star. This image admittedly has a checkered past, what with having been promoted as Chitra Dewi, then delisted when we realized she'd been misidentified. Now that Roosilawaty has her own article, however, things should be golden; we also have an image of her with her autograph scrawled across it, as well as numerous other images identified with text beside them, supporting the ID.
Articles in which this image appears: Roosilawaty
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Tati Photo Studio, Jakarta; restored by Chris Woodrich

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Low-res., particularly indistinct on right side (subject's left) of subject's head. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, as I no longer have any of my collection, that is the highest resolution we are going to get. As this was one of my first scans from my Tati archive, I didn't have the process as streamlined or standardized as later works. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per previous nom, now that it's identified. Bammesk (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 14:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Petar Milošević (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Roosilawati, Tati Photo Studios, c. 1960.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Park, Brooklyn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2023 at 20:04:20 (UTC)

Original – Waterfront view of Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, shows the old Bush Terminal warehouse complex between 39th and 44th Streets.

Reason: Quality waterfront view of the Sunset Park neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. It shows a section of the former Bush Terminal warehouse complex between 39th and 44th Streets, including the remains of the terminal's seven major piers. The image relates to the section of the articles it is in. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Sunset Park, Brooklyn, Industry City
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama or Urban
Creator: Rhododendrites

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Is this worth including in the Industry City article, or is this section of the warehouse complex not considered part of said area? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be added to Industry City. All buildings (5 in foreground and 2 in background) are also in the 1958 lead image in Industry City (background buildings can be ID-ed with the help of this, exterior colors have changed). The depicted area (in nom image) is part of the warehouse and storage section of Industry City, next to the 7 covered piers (only traces of the piers remain now). See Industry City article section "Description" paragraph 2 and section "Piers and storage" paragraphs 1 and 2. Bammesk (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image to the Industry City article: [5] Bammesk (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Nice lighting and very detailed shot of the area. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green iguana

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2023 at 14:16:23 (UTC)

Original – A green iguana in Palm Beach, Florida

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears: Green iguana
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Creator: Rhododendrites

Support as nominator – MER-C 14:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It takes gumption to do a panorama of a living, breathing creature, let alone to do it well! Great image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a comment: Might be worth crediting PetarM, as his edit of this image is the one that Rhododendrites uploaded and had featured. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hey Chris Woodrich i was already mentioned there, no need for anymore. It was more a "homework" for me, since i think it's Rhododendrites best shot and i really like all, from colors, great "light" - some great reflextion. Probably that's why iguana was sunbathing or good sunny-enlighted place. --Petar Milošević (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Petar. Thanks for the edit! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Stunning shot indeed. I like the colour contrast of the subject with the background. And as Chris wrote, I find it's audacious to do a photo-merge of a living creature. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – MA Javadi (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Vinícius O. (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lion-hearted85. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Panorama of a green iguana (06643p).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palm cockatoo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2023 at 16:43:54 (UTC)

Original – A palm cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus). Lockhart, Queensland, Australia

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC last year, where it was featured unanimously. Previous nomination ended up at 3-0.
Articles in which this image appears: Palm cockatoo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – MER-C 16:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per previous nom. Bammesk (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Indistinct outline due to subject's twisted stance. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lion-hearted85 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Palm Cockatoo 0A2A7769.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise and Sugarloaf Mountain

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2023 at 15:54:28 (UTC)

Original – Sunrise in Rio de Janeiro with Sugarloaf Mountain, seen from Tijuca Park.

Reason: High resolution, high EV. This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2016. Featured picture on Wikimedia Commons, and a featured picture on the Persian language Wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears: Sugarloaf Mountain
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Donatas Dabravolskas

Support as nominator – Vinícius O. (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, especially noticeable in the middle of the picture. But considering the impressive beauty of the motif, it is of secondary importance. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the sky, I see some severe banding and pixelation - is this due to my laptop's LCD screen, or can other people notice the banding? Janke | Talk 08:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Janke, the banding exists around the sun but is almost unnoticeable, even when zoomed in. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)\[reply]
  - I'm not seeing anything either. There are pixels in the shadows, as one would expect, but overall this looks to be high quality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see banding either. Just a small lens flare in lower right side. Bammesk (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had another look on my desktop 27-inch display - no banding. Thus, support. --Janke | Talk 13:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the infobox image [6] is a good depiction of the mountain and I'd have supported its nomination. But if we are ever going to have a qualifying sunrise or sunset photo, the nom image would qualify. It shows the city (Rio) in the foreground and is a well rounded and attractive balance of foreground and background, including the mountain. Bammesk (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sugarloaf Sunrise 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform compound of four tetrahedra (UC₂₃)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2023 at 06:11:59 (UTC)

Original – Uniform compound of four digonal antiprisms, or tetrahedra UC₂₃

Reason: This uniform compound of four tetrahedra (UC₂₃; p=2, q=1 and n=4) is beautiful, and surprisingly not very well known. It has a distinctively striking appearance, that to me is both very symmetric and tangible. The infinite families of uniform compound polyhedra UC₂₀ through UC₂₅ tend to be overlooked, so this image being featured could bring some attention to these, through this one example of a uniform antiprismatic compound.
Articles in which this image appears: Compound of four tetrahedra
FP category for this image: Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics
Creator: JeffUK

Withdraw as nominator – Radlrb (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Brightly colored, moving depiction is distracting and annoying. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked if people about this model in the Tea house, people said they'd prefer a rotating model. I can make it move more smoothly. Also, colors are supposed to be bright for these models, the only darker colors available are generally reserved for regular, semiregular and other more important uniform polytopes. Radlrb (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Toylike, not among Wiki's best. --Janke | Talk 19:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with toy-like? Aren't all 3D polytope models toy-like? Radlrb (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the flat lighting and the saturated coloring. Try another shading algorithm to make it look more natural... Also, there are a lot of spurious pixels in the background area. Janke | Talk 07:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, thank you. I'll cook something up really nice. It's comical because I didn't zoom in, and while these images are heavier in general, I thought it was cleaner than it is. There is something I like about the pixelation as is when you zoom in, it's electric. For our purposes something cleaner is naturally needed. Radlrb (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Radlrb, for me the main issue is the 250x250 pixel size. It's good enough for infobox, but I like to see something bigger, say 500x500 pixels or larger when I open the image in its own window. I will support if that's done. Bammesk (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! I might not get to it by the 13th, if so I'll renominate once it is cleaned. I might modernize it slightly too. TY Radlrb (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with Bammesk, I was thinking the same. Please consider that 250×250 looks tiny on high dpi displays. I wouldn't go under 500×500 pixels and stay above if possible. I wonder if the movement could be smoother, too, and if the colours can be reworked to look prettier. Thank you :) --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address all of these : ) Hopefully in time! tyvm Radlrb (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could actually remove this nomination and load a new one when you're ready, so you'd get the full time for votes on the new one. --Janke | Talk 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally I would automatically support this sort of eye-catching and informative geometry visualization. But the parent article is so badly sourced and packed with what appears to be original research (like so many of our polyhedron articles) that I can't bring myself to do so. It's not even obvious to me that the topic is notable: you can place any number of copies of a tetrahedron rotated around one of its axes; what makes this choice of an axis and number of copies special? Do any sources specifically address this shape, not merely mentioning it without depth as an example of a more general construction? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is not the place to discuss such a topic, I would rather discuss that in the talk page, rather than here. It's notable because, it is a uniform compound, and the third of its class, if you'd like a quick answer. You know. Ah, that article is not badly sourced, and has zero OR, you must not know the material well, I suggest you read it. And you are also over-generalizing. Thank you for your input. P.S.: In depth, this compound has only been studied for what it is, just another example. Is it yet known to be applicable somehow? Yes, in a sense, in that it is the double compound of the stella octangula, which is self-dual. So for that reason alone it is notable. This doesn't need to be explicitly stated anywhere since it is common sense and explained by Coxeter and many others, however you seem to not have caught that yet? Radlrb (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Weisstein was never actually voted a non-reliable source, and made policy, was it? It's more your sentiment against it, since you're referring to all sources in the article, and as I have meant yet not gotten to yet, I'll get that page number for the Norman Johnson article (I imagine you mean there especially? Since Robert Webb is obviously the important expository source that makes the article valuable). It's not unreliable, at least not for this article and for most articles that I have read for (98%). And gee, do I really have to say that we need to also be responsibly creative with Wikipedia, because where we can fit notability even though not as strongly, and allow an article to come to fruition, then we should, since it expands knowledge that is important. I bet you this compound beauty will have vast significance beyond what we have found thus, which is though small, still important, since it's another compound with octahedral symmetry that is uniform, aside from the known polyhedra and compounds. Yes, third of its class uniformity is sufficient notability, for which we have at least two sources listed (and will be adding Coxeter and others that did mention these compounds too for completion). I hope I'm being clear, I'm not trying to create 50 articles of Compounds of Tetrahedra, obviously, the first four through five compounds, yes, because it makes sense, aside from the larger uniform ones (10, 12, and 20 tetrahedra). They share tetrahedral and octahedral symmetries (rotational or full), and icosahedral, as immediate subgroups (for the compound of 4 tetrah, it's like a merging of octahedral and octagonal prismatic symmetry, 24 or 48, and 32). I guess I just explained it here, rather than in the talk page. Radlrb (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to be honest, I was kind of looking for your comment, but not wishing it would be an attempt to just minimize, you know? Like I'm hoping we can make amends here. Radlrb (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT was all that about??? Janke | Talk 08:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OLD drama, and some clarification. All g... Radlrb (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filipendula vulgaris

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2023 at 17:12:39 (UTC)

Original – Dropwort inflorescence

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC two months ago, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears: Filipendula vulgaris
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: Ivar Leidus

Support as nominator – MER-C 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vinícius O. (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenschwangau Castle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2023 at 17:18:05 (UTC)

Original – Hohenschwangau Castle at Schwangau, Bavaria, Germany.

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC in June where it was featured unanimously. Very high resolution (100 MP). Previous nomination ended on 4-0.
Articles in which this image appears: Hohenschwangau Castle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Thomas Wolf

Support as nominator – MER-C 17:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per previous nom. Bammesk (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2023
Comment – Colors perhaps a bit oversaturated. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Support – MA Javadi (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow oppose - obviously the quality is incredible, but having reviewed both the creator's contributions and our Architecture category, the composition here doesn't stand out for me. The viewpoint seems awkward; a quick Google search suggests better ones are available; and as the most repeatable kind of photo, our standards for buildings should be highest. This is from a great photographer, with great equipment, who should have many FPs, but I'm not sure this should be one of them. TSP (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vinícius O. (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Schloss Hohenschwangau 2021.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C/2022 E3 (ZTF)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2023 at 17:33:24 (UTC)

Original – C/2022 E3 (ZTF) on 27 January 2023

Reason: Quality photo of this recently discovered comet, discovered in March 2022. This photo was captured in January 2023 when the comet was close to Earth and had an anti-tail. The photo is published by INAF, the Italian National Institute for Astrophysics. The photo is captured by an independent (I think) photographer who is affiliated with INAF. Was seen on en-WP main-page.
Articles in which this image appears: C/2022 E3 (ZTF), +1
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: Edu INAF, photographer: Alessandro Bianconi

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd considered nominating this myself, but then I saw it is a PNG. Have they fixed that annoying little bug where a JPG thumbnail is sharper than a PNG thumbnail? Lossless is nice, but if it's detrimental to readers... well, in this case there are no fine details to be lost either way, so I feel comfortable supporting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bug is there, but I agree that in many cases there is no noticeable difference, especially at smaller thumbnails. Also, both formats render the same at full size (as far as I can tell). Bammesk (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the full resolution images load the same. However, as these images are seen by readers within the context of articles... I am somewhat concerned by thumbnail appearance when it affects the viewing experience. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well, I'll support it in any file format... --Janke | Talk 13:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Vinícius O. (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as uploader - I think this is not only a characteristic view of this comet, but also a very helpful illustration of comet tails and coma: the blue ion tail, the white dust tail and the green coma, along with an antitail. --C messier (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MA Javadi (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:C2022 E3 (ZTF)- Alessandro Bianconi.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thyroid hormone synthesis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2023 at 20:40:41 (UTC)

Original – Synthesis of thyroid hormones

Reason: This illustration of thyroid hormone synthesis is used in many articles. It has a detailed caption in the first two articles listed below. The file description is detailed and lists the sources. There is a SVG version but it is only used in one article [7], apparently the article editors prefer the nominated version (used in 7 articles).
Articles in which this image appears: Thyroid hormones, Thyroid, Thyroid follicular cell, Triiodothyronine, Thyroid peroxidase, +2
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator: Mikael Häggström

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Usually, I would prefer an SVG. However, in this case the SVG seems to be rendering font in different sizes and with different spacing depending on your resolution. I'd much rather have the consistency of a PNG. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Informative, high EV. --Janke | Talk 13:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thyroid hormone synthesis.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katabatic wind

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2023 at 04:49:21 (UTC)

Original – Katabatic wind, this photo depicts a wind drop from a cooler highland into a warmer lowland. As the air drops, its warming results in the evaporation of the moisture content of the air – in this case the moisture content of the highland fog.

Reason: Quality photo of an interesting wind phenomenon. For a brief summary, see the image caption in the article or in the nom. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Katabatic wind
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
Creator: ZeevStein

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I never thought I'd be voting on a featured picture of wind, but here we go! The little tendrils going down the slope are good illustrations of the air currents at work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Although it may not be perfect technically, it depicts the phenomenon very well, and it's a pleasing and interesting composition. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but quite good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 01:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – MA Javadi (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:מכתש רמון - גלישת עננים (cropped).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of Saint Peter of Alcantara

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2023 at 16:23:25 (UTC)

Original – Bird's-eye view of the St. Peter of Alcantara Cathedral, the final resting place of the last Emperor of Brazil, Pedro II

Alt - Less saturation, less noise in sky

Reason: High quality picture. This image was awarded with the 9th prize in the national contest of Brazil in Wiki Loves Monuments 2022
Articles in which this image appears: Cathedral of Petrópolis, Petrópolis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Filipo tardim

Support as nominator – Vinícius O. (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quite oversaturated, does not look real... --Janke | Talk 17:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – looking at it at full size, the sky is too noisy and the trees are too blue. Doesn't meet FP criterion #1. Bammesk (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although I can't speak to Brazil, my experience in Indonesia suggests that the tropical sun can certainly lead to high levels of saturation at higher altitudes (this FP is an example... though admittedly that FP is somewhat less saturated). However, the noise in the sky suggests that quite a bit of post-processing was involved to get this saturation, and even if it weren't, the noise would be a deal breaker. I can see what I can do in Photoshop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded an alt with some minor changes. As the original was a finalist in a competition, I do not feel as though it should be overwritten. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still too "postcardy"... Janke | Talk 08:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, hence why I didn't support it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lasiocampa quercus caterpillar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2023 at 11:19:47 (UTC)

Original – Lasiocampa quercus caterpillar (fourth instar)

Reason: Currently unopposed at Commons FPC.
Articles in which this image appears: Lasiocampa quercus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Ivar Leidus

Support as nominator – MER-C 11:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – --Janke | Talk 11:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 14:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lasiocampa quercus 4th instar caterpillar Keila (side view).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Campanula cervicaria

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2023 at 11:22:27 (UTC)

Original – A bristly bellflower.

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC two weeks ago, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears: Campanula cervicaria
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: Ivar Leidus

Support as nominator – MER-C 11:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – --Janke | Talk 11:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 14:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Campanula cervicaria - Keila.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction (parachuting)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2023 at 20:01:59 (UTC)

Original – Parachute malfunction, time-lapse photo of an erroneous reserve canopy deployment. In this photo the two canopies bump together and come to biplane stability.

Reason: Time-lapse photo of a reserve canopy malfunction. This is not a recent or a high pixel count photo, but it does a good job of showing a rare and dangerous malfunction when a reserve canopy opens while the main canopy is still working. For details see the article's image caption as well as the section "Two canopies out".
Articles in which this image appears: Malfunction (parachuting)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator: Dmitry A. Mottl

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My first impression was of three parachutists... the timelapse is not immediately apparent. Furthermore, the sequence really doesn't make clear what and how it happened... --Janke | Talk 12:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Janke. Confusing. Visual information is not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Agree with Janke and Sca. I find it hard to understand what's going on here. Choliamb (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palácio do Planalto

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2023 at 17:03:18 (UTC)

Original – Palácio do Planalto, the Brazilian presidential palace, and its reflecting pool at dusk

Reason: Good quality picture of an unusual palace. This image won the seventh prize in the international finale of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016
Articles in which this image appears: Palácio do Planalto, President of Brazil, List of palaces
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Gastão guedes

Support as nominator – Vinícius O. (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cut off on top. MER-C 17:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above. --Janke | Talk 11:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Taking the photo at dusk is a great choice as it highlights the building and its reflection in the water. Unfortunately, the picture quality is not very good and the top of the building has been cropped, as MER-C noted. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild strawberry

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2023 at 02:05:19 (UTC)

Original – Fragaria vesca (Wild strawberry)

Reason: Quality photo of wild strawberry. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Wild strawberry
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator: Reinhold Möller

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – One of seven pix in target article, and not the one in the infobox. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looks a bit overripe, starting to "rot" at the top... --Janke | Talk 18:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Even if it's one of the seven pictures in the target article, it's definitely the best one in terms of execution and composition (the others are still useful, since they depict the fruit in different contexts). Putting it in the infobox or not is a matter of choice and maybe consistency. I note that many articles of this kind put an illustration in the infobox. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vinícius O. (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 14:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Walderdbeere Frucht-20210617-RM-124006.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhina Aguirre

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2023 at 20:04:30 (UTC)

Original – Rhina Aguirre, a blind senator representing Tarija

Reason: High resolution, well contrasted and in focus. Individual of cultural notability.
Articles in which this image appears: Rhina Aguirre (Cropped version)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Staff photographer for the Chamber of Senators of Bolivia

Support as nominator – Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Background glare. – Sca (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can't feature it if it's not used (crop doesn't count as used) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background detracts from subject. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think the background is the Chamber of Senators of Bolivia, relevant to her career. But per Chris, the image isn't used in her article. I would support a renomination if the image is used in her bio article, or if the the cropped infobox image is nominated. Bammesk (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per this and above comments, I think I will re-nominate using the cropped image version. This should also handle the issue other users had with background glare. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alicudi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2023 at 19:15:09 (UTC)

Original – Aerial image of Alicudi (view from the south)

Reason: high quality image with high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Alicudi
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Carsten Steger

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Carsten Steger (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Leider, scant topographical features. Target = 275 words. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 11:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 14:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Choliamb (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Aerial image of Alicudi (view from the south).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Lemon at the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2023 at 21:58:53 (UTC)

Original – Don Lemon at the Pulitzer Prizes, 2018

Reason: High quality, encyclopedic image. Illustrates the subject in a jarring yet fascinating way and is somewhat of an article hook. No technical issues from what I can tell.
Articles in which this image appears: Don Lemon, Don Lemon Tonight, New Yorkers in journalism, Lists of African Americans, Brooklyn College
FP category for this image: WP:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Fuzheado

Support as nominator – Crusader1096 (message) 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lion-hearted85 (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Photo of media personality in jacket & tie. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a knitted tie! Support, --Janke | Talk 15:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems aesthetically compelling. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Don Lemon at the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]