Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2012
| 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 30 Jun 2012 at 20:48:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- Sharp, nice composition, FP in Commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Taj Mahal
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Poco a poco
- Support as nominator --Poco2 20:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's actually an OK photo, comparable to the current lead picture in the article. But the EV is the problem here, it's not a very classical view of the Taj, and in the article it's basically just part of a gallery. Sorry, please don't be discouraged from contributing again!
- Comment I think this image is better than the lead now and offers the classical view --Muhammad(talk) 06:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm sure replacing the lead image is going to upset someone, so why not propose the replacement of the lead image with yours on the article talk page? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Per above. —P. S. Burton (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Per above. The current lead image in the article appears to possibly have a better chance of passing. Dusty777 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2012 at 00:14:32 (UTC)
- Reason
- One of the interesting features of the Seville Cathedral, which deserves a particular, dedicated shot.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Seville Cathedral
- FP category for this image
- Places/Architecture
- Creator
- antecessor (Mario Modesto Mata)
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 00:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose too grainy at full size, and the fine points of the art are better seen when viewing this image full size. A better quality photo from this same angle could justify FP. Pine✉ 05:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor image quality and lighting; cropping is too tight (particularly at the top) and large amount of distortion in the verticals --Fir0002 05:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose bad framing for portal (ground not visible, top crop), overexposure, and unnecessary distortion. --ELEKHHT 07:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2012 at 18:23:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good portrait, well composed, high EV, and quite sharp
- Articles in which this image appears
- Christopher Tolofua
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
- Creator
- PierreSelim
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor image quality/sharpness and awkward pose. Would be better to have him in either a more active position (and make it an action photo) or more relaxed and with a much tighter frame of view (and make it a portrait photo). --Fir0002 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Pine✉ 09:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2012 at 18:29:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution, high EV, notable person, notable painter. Commons FP.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Molière
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Pierre Mignard (Photographed by Jebulon)
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. The white background could probably be made see-through, but this does seem to be a strong candidate. J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Pine✉ 09:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2012 at 11:50:30 (UTC)
- Reason
- This picture in completely unaltered and shows several actions within a single exposure, which would usually require a montage. Illustrates a firearm in a compelling way.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pistol
- FP category for this image
- link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
- Creator
- the creator of the image, where possible using the format wikiuser
- Support as nominator --CorneliusA (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Explain how this illustrates a Ricochet? Surely this doesn't have much EV for Pistol, so where is the EV for this picture? it's a rather snapshotty image of a guy shooting a gun into dirt, so it escapes me? — raekyt 13:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose and Speedy Close. Composition is poor, the image is no longer used in any article(it was quickly reverted in Pistol). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Not promoted --Dusty777 17:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not linked to any articles Dusty777 17:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2012 at 02:42:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- Featured picture on Commons, a comprehensive view of the Sawtooth Valley and the Sawtooth Range in central Idaho from the pass north of Ketchum where most people first see the mountains and valley.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sawtooth National Forest, Sawtooth Valley, Galena Summit
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Acroterion
- Support as nominator --Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support good EV as the lead image, with the explanation above making this more convincing. Quality is adequate although at full size the trees look a little strange in places. Pine✉ 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- The strange trees are some chromatic aberration that was pointed out at the Commons FP discussion. I can fix it, but will have to wait until power comes back to run Photoshop: the June 2012 North American derecho has us on generator power and I'm working from a laptop for now. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2012 at 06:03:58 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- High EV and a nice view of the locomotive; Commons FP
- Articles in which this image appears
- Union Pacific 844
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
- Creator
- Drew Jacksich
- Support as nominator --—Bruce1eetalk 06:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice angle - it's a bit soft though; could certainly do with a bit of selective sharpening in Photoshop... --Fir0002 05:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per Fir. BTW, I moved the picture to the lead spot in the article to help increase the encyclopedic value. Dusty777 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support A majestic piece of equipment, and even more impressive when viewed up close and personal (I saw her when she passed through El Paso back in November 2011). Ironically, I was about to nominate this for FPC myself when I noticed that a nom was already open. Great minds really do think alike, eh? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support. Very nice, but the head room is a big mean for my taste. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose has focus problems when viewed at full size, especially visible on the far left of the engine and on the right side of the image. This is a decent picture but it's not "among Wikipedia's best work." Pine✉ 09:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Magnificent photograph. Selective sharpening as mentioned above could fix the very minor focus issues, but even as it is this is a brilliant picture well worth showcasing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Union Pacific 844, Painted Rocks, NV, 2009 (crop).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2012 at 14:27:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good quality and high EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Point Arena Light
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Frank Schulenburg
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Beautiful. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Question why is the lighthouse leaning to the right? It looks like some sort of distortion. Is that necessary? I think the photo would have better EV without the distortion. Pine✉ 09:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2012 at 22:06:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- This picture is an excellent depiction of what a scintillating scotoma looks like, which is very difficult, because it is a visual aura.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Scintillating scotoma
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
- Creator
- Mikael Häggström
- Support as nominator --WikiDonn (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm concerned about WP:OR here. The description states that it is self-made, so how do we know this is an accurate representation of the characteristics of this general phenomenon? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. It fits the description according to the article and its sources, doesn't it? --WikiDonn (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Remember that Wikipedia:OR#Original_images allows a limited amount of original research, and, in particular, for a visual aura only visible to a small number of people, the person making it should have or be working with someone who has the condition, not just basing it on article descriptions, otherwise you're going to end up with something that has no guarantee of matching even a single case. The illustration should certainly be carefully checked against reference materials, to check it's typical. But, at the same time, without the personal experience, there's no way to get the smaller details that can't be described by simple words. 86.178.192.213 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. It fits the description according to the article and its sources, doesn't it? --WikiDonn (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 11:17:56 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV and quality, good dynamics and good illustration of sandboarding
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sandboarding
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
- Creator
- Steven J. Weber
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - A sport that has always interested me, a good picture too. Oakley77 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support OK, why not? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Snapshot of an obscure pursuit, claims of quality not sustained on closer examination. Good for the college magazine but it isn't pro-sports photography level nor is it FP-worthy. I shall resist the temptation to insert A vowel back there despite my conclusions as it its popularity already. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support we feature photos of obscure birds, so it seems fair to feature photos of obscure sports. If they're notable enough for an article then they're notable enough for FP. This photo seems like a reasonable illustration of the sport. Pine✉ 05:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support meets the criteria.--GoPTCN 10:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per plutonium. Its soft. Dusty777 18:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral "Obscure pursuit" would normally help it, because the photograph would have a strong EV. However, there are other illustrations to much the same effect in the article so what would otherwise be a very strong EV – and one which for me would outweight its not massive technical faults – but with them, it is one of many. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Sandboarding in Dubai.jpg --Jujutacular (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- 5 Support / 2 Oppose -> 71% -> Promote Jujutacular (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2012 at 15:30:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a renomanation. The original is located at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pythagoras similar triangles proof. I beleive that most of the issues arising in that nomination have been addressed.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pythagorean theorem
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
- Creator
- Gauravjuvekar
- Support as nominator --Gauravjuvekar (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support as I did last time, but now it is better.--GoPTCN 15:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- 'Addressed Issues
- JJ Harrison's issue of mixing notations.
- Blieusong's issue of using sans-serif fonts.
- Inconsistencies by using arrows only on 'c'.
- Inconsistencies in file_desc and article.
- I believe that these issues have been resolved however, the illustration is now even more simpler.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support as earlier. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Pine✉ 09:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Simple is better imo. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as before. Sorry Gauravjuvekar and guys but nothing substancial has changed from the last nomination. Yes, it is a correct illustration but lacks the magic or sophistication we should expect from a FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Purpy Pupple's concerns in previous nom. Lacks EV because the image doesn't actually prove anything. It's just a visual aid for the proof, and not a particularly compelling one at that. I certainly wouldn't place it "among Wikipedia's best work." Makeemlighter (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar and Makeemlighter. --Avenue (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Relisted after suspension.
.jpg){kind=spacer}
- Reason
- Breathtaking view of a rare astronomical phenomenon, high quality, very good encyclopedic value
- Articles in which this image appears
- Transit of Venus, 2012, Transit of Venus, Solar Dynamics Observatory
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
- Creator
- Solar Dynamics Observatory
- Support as nominator --EngineerFromVega★ 10:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I considered this image before, but think an animation would serve better, so added it as alt (perhaps this is the most decent animation of 2012 transit currently available). Brandmeistertalk 11:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment
Original has not been in article for the required 7 days per criteria 5.Dusty777 23:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)- I suggest suspending on that basis. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for being a bit over-zealous. Please suspend this nomination for a week. EngineerFromVega★ 05:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest suspending on that basis. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Suspended pending article stability. --jjron (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Original Has excellent EV. Good technical quality. Dusty777 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The original is not taken from Earth so is not strictly a picture of the transit of Venus. Yomanganitalk 01:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Quoting from Astronomical transit, it states:
- "A transit is the astronomical event that occurs when one celestial body appears to move across the face of another celestial body, hiding a small part of it, as seen by an observer at some particular vantage point."
- It doesn't say you have to see it from Earth for it to qualify as a transit. Also, the Solar Dynamics Observatory (the instrument which took the picture) is a satellite of Earth, so it has nearly the same vantage point as anyone on Earth did while observing the transit. Dusty777 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's a transit, not the Transit of Venus, 2012 which refers to the transit of Venus visible from the Earth (otherwise it would still be occurring if you happened to be floating in space in the correct position). Yomanganitalk 23:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ohhh.... I see what you mean. Thank you for the clarification. Dusty777 02:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's a transit, not the Transit of Venus, 2012 which refers to the transit of Venus visible from the Earth (otherwise it would still be occurring if you happened to be floating in space in the correct position). Yomanganitalk 23:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't say you have to see it from Earth for it to qualify as a transit. Also, the Solar Dynamics Observatory (the instrument which took the picture) is a satellite of Earth, so it has nearly the same vantage point as anyone on Earth did while observing the transit. Dusty777 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support original. Stunning. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support original with the note that I've added the image to two other articles, Transit of Venus and Solar Dynamics Observatory. I understand Yomangani's concern and hopefully adding the image to the other two articles will help. I think the image is especially unlikely to be removed from the Solar Dynamics Observatory article. Pine✉ 19:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Original JJ Harrison (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:SDO's Ultra-high Definition View of 2012 Venus Transit (304 Angstrom Full Disc 02).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for promoting it. I feel good as this was my first successful nomination. EngineerFromVega★ 06:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2012 at 23:21:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- Encyclopedic, high quality.It is also a good image to demonstrate Transit of Venus photographed from Earth using white light filter. It is easy to compare size of Venus to size od sunspots. Nominated below NASA image of transit of Venus does not show limb darkening.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Limb darkening
- FP category for this image
- [Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
- Creator
- mbz1
- Support as nominator --Broccolo (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Question Are you sure that this is the best available photo to illustrate Limb Darkening? The image looks grainy, especially at full size. Pine✉ 19:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the best image of limb darkening. It is also the best image of the transit of Venus photographed from Earth, and according to the comments made in the nomination below should replace the top image in the article Transit of Venus, 2012. Grains is simply granulation. Broccolo (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support I think that Venus is actually a distraction here. We should ask mbz1 to take another shot without it imo. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per JJ Harrison about Venus being a distraction. Pine✉ 04:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2012 at 00:14:15 (UTC)
- Reason
- meets all the featured image criteria
- Articles in which this image appears
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly
- FP category for this image
- Cordulegastridae
- Creator
- Rhondle
- Support as nominator --Rhondle (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is ok but it would have stronger EV if it was used in more articles, as a lead image, or to illustrate a significant fact. Pine✉ 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, beautiful image, but very little EV. If we had an article on the Pacific Spiketail, it would be much more useful. For Dragonfly though, there are hundreds of images we could use, including many featured pictures. I would certainly support as a Commons featured picture though. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have created the article at Cordulegaster dorsalis. A bit of fleshing out and we'd have the required EV. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2012 at 19:33:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Notable painting used in many articles, high EV, good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, Constitutional Convention (United States), American philosophy, List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Howard Chandler Christy, Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, George Washington, Originalism, Founding Fathers of the United States, Powers of the United States Congress, United States Congress, United States Constitution, Independence National Historical Park, and others
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
- Creator
- Howard Chandler Christy
- Support as nominator --Pine✉ 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is a lot of streaking in the bottom third of the image. Poor scan? Spikebrennan (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose —P. S. Burton (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2012 at 18:58:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another of Adam's post-retirement restorations, this is the only image in the article, which had sat without one for six years previous. It only uses a handful of colors, so it looks a bit garish, but Adam says that is typical of the time period. Comment from Adam: "Good lord, this took ages. There were many rips, some small missing areas, and severe vignetting. Besides the normal removing of dirt and dust, all these had to be corrected, involving reconstruction work and careful levels adjustments." I particularly like how the Scots Guards (I presume) are fighting in kilts.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Battle of Belmont (1899)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
- Creator
- Kurz & Allison, lithographers; restoration by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --—howcheng {chat} 18:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - per nomination — P. S. Burton (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm not sure how this image helps the reader to understand the subject of the article. Pine✉ 04:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2012 at 12:25:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- high quality, featured in commons and encyclopedic.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Star Trail Photography
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Bresson Thomas
- Support as nominator --al (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support good illustration of this type of photography. Can you work on expanding the article? Pine✉ 19:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. It's okay, but I don't think it's that difficult to create a better photo. I know there's nothing in the 'star trail rule book' to say that it must include the nodal point, but you get a better sense of what exactly is happening in the scene when you see the stars 'rotating' around that point. I'd be happy to take on the challenge to capture a better photo but light pollution is pretty terrible where I live at the moment Perhaps later this northern hemisphere summer, I'll have a few opportunities. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The distortion of the wide angle lens makes the horizon bow and some of the more peripheral star trails follow a slightly counter intuitive path. It also looks like this image is a merged stack of 14 long exposure images which makes short gaps in the star trails, again slightly confusing. - Zephyris Talk 10:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I think a great star trails photo either has to include more stars (in a, necessarily, darker sky) and the pole, or else include some interesting landscape below. It is too easy to find better examples in a Google Image search, though of course they are not free or in high resolution. Colin°Talk 12:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure I could also find a few old star trail photos taken with my old 5D (honestly don't think I've bothered to take a single star trail photo in the 7 years I've been in the UK, such is the light pollution and cloud cover) that would fit the criteria... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2012 at 13:18:08 (UTC)
- Reason
- High Quality, Good Framing and Encyclopedic.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Griffin and Persepolis
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Hansueli Krapf
- Support as nominator --al (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose the EV doesn't seem to be very high for either article, and the caption doesn't convince me that there's anything especially notable about this particular sculpture of a griffin. Pine✉ 04:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Pine. Dusty777 17:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2012 at 20:57:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- This seems to be among the better atmospheric phenomenon images on WP
- Articles in which this image appears
- Planetary boundary layer
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others (guessing)
- Creator
- TonyTheTiger, edited by Raeky
- Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Two concerns: First, the image has not been in any article for seven days (indeed, it was only taken 3 days ago). Second, it doesn't represent any of the things it is purported to represent: This is an image of a shelf cloud, which is more closely related to vertical velocities than temperature gradients, and certainly does not represent an inversion. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was told by my friend. Hey come take a picture of this thermocline. Neither of us is a meteorologist. I just assumed I was taking a picture of a thermocline. It seems I am working in your area of expertise. Could this image find a home with encyclopedic value at Vertical draft? P.S. I'd love to see you do something for WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. would you describe my image as a weak formation of a shelf cloud?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd just say it's a plain old shelf cloud; some are more spectacular in appearance than others, but none are really more "strong" or "weak" than the other. The updrafts and downdrafts involved can certainly be strong or weak, but this would not necessarily be apparent from the appearance. The image could be useful at vertical draft; the shelf cloud itself is a manifestation of the storm inflow (updraft), with the outflow (downdraft) area to the left in the precipitation. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- PS I have removed the image from the first two articles, as it clearly was not representative of the subjects of those articles. For planetary boundary layer it's a bit fuzzy, as the "boundary layer" sort of loses meaning around storm-scale phenomena such as thunderstorms. I'd say find a new destination for the image (perhaps Inflow (meteorology) to replace the existing thunderstorm image), I just didn't want to remove it from all pages to leave this nomination in limbo. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll stick it in there, but do you have a suggestion for the caption.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- PS I have removed the image from the first two articles, as it clearly was not representative of the subjects of those articles. For planetary boundary layer it's a bit fuzzy, as the "boundary layer" sort of loses meaning around storm-scale phenomena such as thunderstorms. I'd say find a new destination for the image (perhaps Inflow (meteorology) to replace the existing thunderstorm image), I just didn't want to remove it from all pages to leave this nomination in limbo. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd just say it's a plain old shelf cloud; some are more spectacular in appearance than others, but none are really more "strong" or "weak" than the other. The updrafts and downdrafts involved can certainly be strong or weak, but this would not necessarily be apparent from the appearance. The image could be useful at vertical draft; the shelf cloud itself is a manifestation of the storm inflow (updraft), with the outflow (downdraft) area to the left in the precipitation. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. would you describe my image as a weak formation of a shelf cloud?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was told by my friend. Hey come take a picture of this thermocline. Neither of us is a meteorologist. I just assumed I was taking a picture of a thermocline. It seems I am working in your area of expertise. Could this image find a home with encyclopedic value at Vertical draft? P.S. I'd love to see you do something for WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
More details on the history of this image are available at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Atmospheric thermocline.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2012 at 22:14:28 (UTC)
- Reason
- This has been sitting at WP:PPR since April and hasn't received any feedback. It was nominated at Commons (not by me) in March and failed, but I've now fixed the issues that were pointed out at the time. There are some minor faults, such as the minuscule portion of antenna that is cut off, but I think the overall resolution, detail, and quality makes up for it.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Saint George Palace, Rennes
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- User:Julia W
- Support as nominator --Julia\talk 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. I don't see any major technical problems. Contributes excellent EV. Dusty777 02:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 06:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good EV. I couldn't care less about the top of the antenna, but the branch on the top right corner is not ideal in terms of composition, although helped by the dark cloud. Despite this and other minor technical shortcomings, do support. It does supersede a number of super-trashy images in that Commons folder. --ELEKHHT 08:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent detail and an aesthetically pleasing subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I like the two guys having a chat centre-stage. "Hey, Michel, what do you know about droit d'image in French law?" "To be honest, Baptiste, I'm just happy to be in a potential featured picture, ." I don't suppose they'll sue but if you have an image of the front door without them among the 22 images perhaps you could substitute that. Yomanganitalk 10:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very amusing, but I'm not sure it's a significant enough issue to warrant re-stitching. They're almost unidentifiable, and are not visible in a location in which one would expect privacy. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Moreover, they provide a valuable scale reference. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have any frames without them lurking. I've already done a lot of work with layers in order to remove clueless tourists who kept wandering into the pictures, so if I could have avoided the firemen (particularly the one in orange hi-vis) I would have done. Le droit à l'image applies less so to public figures who are carrying out their duties. The two men are employees of the city, standing in front of the city's fire department building, where they work. Considering that Rennes prominently put this building on its tourist map, I'd say the fireman's biggest beef would be with the city, not me, ;) Julia\talk 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support A great encyclopaedic image. However, I do think the two characters in the centre spoil the picture. The hi-vis chap in particular just draws the eye and I bet that's what everyone zooms in on when they see the picture. If they had been sitting in deck-chairs surveying the gardens they work in, then it might be a bit amusing. Considering the manipulation already going on, I'd consider cloning them out would be a harmless alteration as the background behind them is easily created and doesn't contain any vital detail of the subject. The girl on the LHS could also be removed, though she's harder to spot in the first place. That would result in a pristine photo of the building/gardens that would be more generally useful and without any distracting temporary elements. Colin°Talk 11:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tried cloning them out a couple of weeks ago but I wasn't happy with the result (mostly the fault of my subpar Photoshop skills). I have another frame showing both their faces clearly but they are also both closer to the door where it would be easier to remove them. I'll re-stitch and have another go. Julia\talk 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done (uploaded over top). While I was there I realised I could also fix the out of focus areas on the left side of the building. :) Julia\talk 00:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I actually liked the version with the people (gardeners?). Agree with the IP 131.137.245.207 above that they provided scale reference and were not distracting. --ELEKHHT 01:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Weaksupport nice large image with good EV, but grainy when viewed at 100%. Pine✉ 04:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)- Judging an image of this size (50 megapixel) at 100% isn't really appropriate though. Would you be saying weak support if it was a super sharp 5 megapixel image? It would look better at 100% but would have significantly less detail visible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer a sharp 50 MP image to a mildly grainy 50 MP image. A super sharp 5 MP image for a scene of this size might not get my full support for a different reason, namely the one that you mentioned: insufficient detail for the size of the scene. I try to make a case by case evaluation. Pine✉ 05:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- We'd all "prefer" a perfect image, but I really don't think it at all fair or reasonable to knock half a point off your vote due to pixel-peeping issues that are only visible at 50MP. And certainly not while our current minimum requirements are at the embarrasingly low level of <2MP. If Julia had downsized this to 24MP, we'd have been impressed at the apparent sharpness and would't be aware of any loss of detail. I appreciate some scenes do need a v big image to supply sufficient detail, but can you explain what detail is missing? For example, the hedge in the centre occupies 4% of the height of the image yet I can see the individual leaves on it. Same goes for the tiles on the roof. And the subject is a huge palace, not "roofing" or "hedge". In a recent talk page discussion somebody-who-shall-remain-nameless argued against rejecting a "clear, freely licensed, [...] excellent illustration of the subject [...] solely for low pixel count". Yet this criticism is only possible due to the remarkably high pixel count. These sort of judgements really make one want to give up.
- Having said that, Julia, this version does have more grain than your previous one with the people. There's also a tiny amount of CA on the white electrical tubing running along the centre of the building that wasn't there before (blue/green on top, red on bottom). I only noticed it because I loaded the previous one to compare as I hadn't noticed any grain the last time I looked at it. Has the grain crept in due to sharpening or did you turn down the NR? Did you process this differently? Colin°Talk 08:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did process it differently as I had to start again from scratch in order to recover the layers. I'm pretty sure that before I gave this a denoise and possibly also sharpened it a little, whereas this time I did noise reduction on the sky only. I think it's acceptable as it is given the resolution, but sure, I'll do a little denoising later when I'm home. As for the CA . . . I've no idea. I don't think I've changed anything that would have introduced it this time, or removed it last time. I'll see what I can do. Julia\talk 08:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure you'd prefer a perfectly sharp 500 MP image too, but are you sure you're being realistic in judging it to be too grainy for full support? Does the grain really distract you from appreciating the detail? Agree with Colin... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I took another look and I'm still not fond of the grain, so I'm still saying weak support. Note that this is weak support and there are plenty of supporters for this image, so the image is likely to pass. Pine✉ 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Julia has uploaded a new version with more NR. Pine, forget the other supports for a moment. We're questioning why you are chopping off half a vote because of an issue only visible at 100% on a 52MP image. What if everyone did that? Can you try an experiment. Open the previous version of the picture (the one with grain) in IrfanView for example, and resample (best quality) the image to 70% without adding sharpening afterwards. That's a 25MP image. Can you see any grain? No. Its an image that if someone's £3000 Nikon full-frame camera produced directly, they'd be very pleased. And you can see all the leaves and tiles and wires and tiny details. So if Julia had uploaded that version, you wouldn't be "weak supporting" would you? So essentially, you are penalising Julia for uploading a 52MP image rather than a 25MP one. Is that fair or reasonable? -- Colin°Talk 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can still see a lot of grain at 70%. The image looks good to me at 50%. Generally I would take a sharp 13MP image over a 50MP image that has a problematic amount of graininess or blur. I have down-sampled images for this same reason. I think quality is generally more valuable than size. Also see what the Featured Picture Criteria says: an image "shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies." Pine✉ 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the keyword in the criteria is "significant". The sort of grain I would find objectionable would be far stronger and more obvious even when viewing at less than 100%. The other thing to note is that a sharp 13MP is already the equivalent of a 50MP image with slight grain/softness. The difference is that once an image is downsampled, you can never get any information back that was lost, whereas you can always downsample the 50MP image later to get that sharp 13MP you prefer. This is why we always prefer higher resolution images to be uploaded (and why we don't encourage you to nitpick at 100%). In fact, IMO, the test that you just performed in which you were happy with the image quality at 50% suggests that you should fully support the image, because essentially, if you downsample an image to a resolution in which you're both happy with the detail and happy with the sharpness/image quality, then it doesn't matter what the image looks like at 100%. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to change your mind, but I think it's important to consider whether you're being reasonable. It's always possible to find faults in photos if you're picky enough. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. It is this sort of vote that is one reason folk take an image from their semi-pro DSLR and downsample it to "resized for web" or "HD quality" so that nobody can be picky with pixel-level details. WP is the loser there, even if it does mean somone get's their gold star with no hassles. If you are happy to accept small images at FP, then you should, to be fair, judge large ones resampled down to the same level as you would have accepted if uploaded smaller. Just because WP lets you view the image at 100% doesn't mean you have to judge it at that level. Colin°Talk 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Persuaded by Diliff and Colin to change vote above. Pine✉ 19:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. It is this sort of vote that is one reason folk take an image from their semi-pro DSLR and downsample it to "resized for web" or "HD quality" so that nobody can be picky with pixel-level details. WP is the loser there, even if it does mean somone get's their gold star with no hassles. If you are happy to accept small images at FP, then you should, to be fair, judge large ones resampled down to the same level as you would have accepted if uploaded smaller. Just because WP lets you view the image at 100% doesn't mean you have to judge it at that level. Colin°Talk 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the keyword in the criteria is "significant". The sort of grain I would find objectionable would be far stronger and more obvious even when viewing at less than 100%. The other thing to note is that a sharp 13MP is already the equivalent of a 50MP image with slight grain/softness. The difference is that once an image is downsampled, you can never get any information back that was lost, whereas you can always downsample the 50MP image later to get that sharp 13MP you prefer. This is why we always prefer higher resolution images to be uploaded (and why we don't encourage you to nitpick at 100%). In fact, IMO, the test that you just performed in which you were happy with the image quality at 50% suggests that you should fully support the image, because essentially, if you downsample an image to a resolution in which you're both happy with the detail and happy with the sharpness/image quality, then it doesn't matter what the image looks like at 100%. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to change your mind, but I think it's important to consider whether you're being reasonable. It's always possible to find faults in photos if you're picky enough. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can still see a lot of grain at 70%. The image looks good to me at 50%. Generally I would take a sharp 13MP image over a 50MP image that has a problematic amount of graininess or blur. I have down-sampled images for this same reason. I think quality is generally more valuable than size. Also see what the Featured Picture Criteria says: an image "shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies." Pine✉ 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Julia has uploaded a new version with more NR. Pine, forget the other supports for a moment. We're questioning why you are chopping off half a vote because of an issue only visible at 100% on a 52MP image. What if everyone did that? Can you try an experiment. Open the previous version of the picture (the one with grain) in IrfanView for example, and resample (best quality) the image to 70% without adding sharpening afterwards. That's a 25MP image. Can you see any grain? No. Its an image that if someone's £3000 Nikon full-frame camera produced directly, they'd be very pleased. And you can see all the leaves and tiles and wires and tiny details. So if Julia had uploaded that version, you wouldn't be "weak supporting" would you? So essentially, you are penalising Julia for uploading a 52MP image rather than a 25MP one. Is that fair or reasonable? -- Colin°Talk 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I took another look and I'm still not fond of the grain, so I'm still saying weak support. Note that this is weak support and there are plenty of supporters for this image, so the image is likely to pass. Pine✉ 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer a sharp 50 MP image to a mildly grainy 50 MP image. A super sharp 5 MP image for a scene of this size might not get my full support for a different reason, namely the one that you mentioned: insufficient detail for the size of the scene. I try to make a case by case evaluation. Pine✉ 05:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Judging an image of this size (50 megapixel) at 100% isn't really appropriate though. Would you be saying weak support if it was a super sharp 5 megapixel image? It would look better at 100% but would have significantly less detail visible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Jkadavoor (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Dusty777 et all. Great image of a beautiful image. gazhiley 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Palais Saint-Georges, Rennes, Aug 2010.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2012 at 22:16:02 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very Good quality for its time. High Ev as lead image. One of the earliest presidents to take a photo and one of the best quality compared to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Martin Van Buren
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Mathew Brady
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - per nomination — P. S. Burton (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support acceptable quality given its age, large image size, good EV. Pine✉ 04:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support: impressive; EV value readily apparent. – Lionel (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Martin Van Buren by Mathew Brady c1855-58.jpg --—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 01:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2012 at 12:40:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- As the image is one of the only panoramas for the article, and is scenic.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mahabaleshwar
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Rishabh Tatiraju
- Support as nominator --Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the stitch and detail is good. But the lighting is pretty bad. The sky is very bright and the foreground is very dark. You should consider taking the shot earlier or later in the day, and perhaps on a day not so heavily overcast. Exposure blending might work too. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose nice attempt but isn't very sharp. A better camera might help. Pine✉ 05:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Pine, however I'm not reluctant sorry... gazhiley 15:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2012 at 15:17:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution, Good Quality, Nice View and Fram and also Being featured in Commons. [1]
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bara Imambara and Asaf-Ud-Dowlah
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bara_Imambara_Lucknow.jpg){kind=link}
- Support as nominator --al (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I would have liked to see a bit more of the foreground, but very nice. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the nomination --Muhammad(talk) 20:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. There appears to be a discontinuity in the coloration of the arches along the top of the structure, just to the right of the center of the building. Is that part of some sort of ongoing restoration/reconstruction/repainting project? If so, is it something that ought to be mentioned in the article and/or image description? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think it may be an ongoing restoration but I can't be sure. Even so, I don't think it affects the image much --Muhammad(talk) 06:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- It looks more obvious in the thumbnail than in the full sized image, I think. It's not a problem anyway, it's just the reality of the scene, imperfections and all. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think it may be an ongoing restoration but I can't be sure. Even so, I don't think it affects the image much --Muhammad(talk) 06:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Strong EV and image quality. Pine✉ 05:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per Diliff. Can't help but cringe at the Pepsi banner though ;) --Fir0002 08:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per Diliff et al gazhiley 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Dusty777 17:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom, but given that "Bara Imambara" is the name used for the whole complex, the caption as well as the file description should be more precise and explain what we see (i.e. the northern façade of the imambara hall). Btw, good effort to capture the morning light. --ELEKHHT 01:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Bara Imambara Lucknow.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2012 at 01:31:46 (UTC)
_between_1635-2009_(small).gif)
- Reason
- I happened on this and it just seemed impressive. Lot of research behind it. Transmits lots of info in a smooth manner.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Territorial evolution of Poland
- FP category for this image
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Diagrams.2C_drawings.2C_and_maps
- Creator
- Esemono
- Support as nominator --TCO (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment For something like this I think the image page needs all the sources that was used to make the image, they need to be accurate and correct, it hasn't got that, the weird zoom in on the area in the front is just awkward and weird, and the image size is tiny for something we'd normally accept for a FP gif image I think... don't think it has a chance, tbh. — raekyt 04:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The slides used in the animation are based on this page: Territorial evolution of Poland and it is small because Wikipedia banned large animated gifs like the original one [2]. In the original the zoom has been changed. -- Esemono (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then where are you getting the borders that you're using, clearly the wikipedia article doesn't give exact or near exact survey lines for the borders over time? Is this WP:OR? — raekyt 12:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly I've used other historical wikipedia maps that are provided in the article or in the event source articles. The accuracy of the slides are of course dependent on these source maps. I followed the lay out provided by award winning Golbez's maps of Mexico (Territorial evolution of Mexico) or his Canada (Territorial evolution of Canada). -- Esemono (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Territorial-changes-of-Poland-1635-2009.gif){kind=link}
- Comment Please either ditch or improve that zoom at the start. The jumping around left and light doesn't look right. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Why is there a slide for the German invasion of the USSR in 1941 (which appears to have not led to any direct changes to the Polish borders - or the lack thereof at this time, tragically) but not a slide for the Polish invasion of the USSR in 1920? Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Are there any changes in the last few frames, say 1960 on? If it is just the names of neighboring states changing I don't know why it would be included. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2012 at 09:58:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- This historical image from 1872 depicts the first elected African American US senator and representatives
- Articles in which this image appears
- List of African-American Republicans, History of the United States Republican Party, African Americans in the United States Congress, List of African-American officeholders during the Reconstruction
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Currier and Ives, uploaded by Lionelt, restored by User:Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator --– Lionel (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright of restorations discussion
|
|---|
The restoration is no longer available for download. I'm sorry it's come to this, but I have zero tolerance for bullying and active breaking of the law, particularly when the alternative is that you follow basic human decency, and give people the requested credit for their work. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Restoration is not a mechanical process. It requires a great deal of judgement and artistry. This judgement and artistry is used to try and repair things in a way that fits in with what existed. This is why restoration is generally *not* done on one-off, deliberative works like paintings for commons; however, as lithographs are a semi-randomly created process, where etching by acid creates random pits, and the amount of these pits determines the darkness of that part of the image, and there will be some variation between copies due to amount of inking and paper variations. In this variation, you have enough freedom to exercise artistic judgement and do a restoration, but, outside of the basic stuff like "remove ink blotches from the white space", there's a necessary level of creative decision making to decide how to repair. To give obvious, easy-to-understand examples:in my restoration of Left Hand Bear, where the corners had been irregularly cut off to round them, in a very uneven, untidy way. I had to reconstruct those areas, including fixing some damaged text (Luckily, the LoC notes told me what it should say), and, on one corner, I actually had to fake some water damage to avoid misleading the reader by providing fine details about the sleeve that didn't exist. Another good one was my Women's Suffrage restoration, where a big chunk was simply missing, and I had to recreate the shoulder of a dress and other incidental details, without which the eye would be immediately drawn to the damage, and away from the actual image.
I'll freely admit this one was not the most difficult of restoration, and didn't have large missing areas. Work I did on this one including repairing a damaged eye, reconstructing some fabric wrinkles where damage near the middle of the image had created a long, jagged vertical line, fixing scratches and stains that damaged facial features, like a fairly wide vertical stain on one man's face, and other such work, covering most of the image. That requires creative input. Yes, the goal is to make the work blend in, but, allow me to remind you the PD-scan policy explicitly points out the bar of creativity is very low in the UK, and I'm pretty sure I've passed it. Commons can deal with ambiguity. For instance, very simple logos can't gain copyright? How simple? We don't know, so the bar of how simple is simply set at a point sufficiently low (text, geometric shapes) that it's clear cut, which lets Commons benefit from the policy, while still staying well away from anything that can get us in trouble. 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.213.143 (talk)
|
- Comment: for those who are interested, the png is here File:First colored senator and reps.png and the tiff is here File:17564u.tiff. – Lionel (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I might be able to support a JPEG version with a minor color correction to whiten up the paper some at full resolution as offered by the TIFF. I think there is probably sufficient EV for the image in these articles to warrant promotion. — raekyt 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm new to WP:FP so patience is appreciated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the LOC the yellowish version is a "digital file from original print." If that is the original color, why would we correct it? If we want a "whiter" (pardon the irony) version, why not use the version LOC describes as "digital file from color film copy slide" as it is "whiter"? [5] Would it just be simpler to use the restoration by Adam (png)? – Lionel (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Adam is making it difficult by trying to impose a copyright where none likely exists, and that's being worked out, a possible solution has been presented to him. The yellow is due to age, paper turns yellow as it ages, specifically paper that hasn't been acid buffered and is acid free. Likely at some point the LOC did treat it so it wouldn't age anymore but the yellowing is damage already done. When it comes to these kinds of things we generally expect some form of restoration to make it look more like it originally did, and other obvious damage removed (Dust, scratches, stains, etc..). That's why I said I could support it with MINOR restoration work, but probably not as is with no changes. — raekyt 12:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and converted Adam's restoration (png) to jpg and uploaded it. I used CC-BY-SA until the details can be sorted out--it doesn't matter for WP:FP. For good measure I uploaded Adam's png, too. But since we have the tiff I guess we should delete the png. What do you think? – Lionel (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Adam is making it difficult by trying to impose a copyright where none likely exists, and that's being worked out, a possible solution has been presented to him. The yellow is due to age, paper turns yellow as it ages, specifically paper that hasn't been acid buffered and is acid free. Likely at some point the LOC did treat it so it wouldn't age anymore but the yellowing is damage already done. When it comes to these kinds of things we generally expect some form of restoration to make it look more like it originally did, and other obvious damage removed (Dust, scratches, stains, etc..). That's why I said I could support it with MINOR restoration work, but probably not as is with no changes. — raekyt 12:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm new to WP:FP so patience is appreciated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the LOC the yellowish version is a "digital file from original print." If that is the original color, why would we correct it? If we want a "whiter" (pardon the irony) version, why not use the version LOC describes as "digital file from color film copy slide" as it is "whiter"? [5] Would it just be simpler to use the restoration by Adam (png)? – Lionel (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question the source is linked to http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/Images/page_13/47a.html, but that shows this image with a white background, so why does it have a tan background here? Pine✉ 04:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong source, actual link should be by the LOC id #: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/98501907/ — raekyt 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Having not read the entire discussion above, I do not know who all the participants are. Yet Raeky's contention regarding copyright is actually open to rebuttal on two entirely separate bases. One is the "sweat of the brow" standard, which is so unusual that to the best of my knowledge it is unique to UK law. An alternate basis widely recognized internationally is whether the restoration itself involved significant creative decisions. For instance, this restoration of the massacre at Wounded Knee revealed four human remains and caused the Library of Congress to revise their catalog description. Naturally this discovery resulted in a conscious decision to restore the albumen print in ways that maximize the visiblity of the human bodies, which had been nearly invisible in the unrestored version. When one encounters a crude retouching attempt to conceal a politician's double chin, does one improve on the retouching or attempt to reconstruct the natural chin?[6] The amount of conscious decision-making that can go into a restoration that has basically one "right" result is described here,[7] and here[8] with the latter instance viewers interpret vastly different expressions from a few pixel changes in the eyes. There are times when a careful reconstruction includes consultation about meteorology[9] and analysis of over whether color bars (when present) are of actual value[10] or complex decisions to compensate for uneven scanner lighting or spinal distortion.[11][12] Does one preserve an ink smear as a historic printing error, or does one "clean" the smudged ink?[13] In this restoration the scan was so detailed that it had picked up the impression from an eraser rubbing that had gotten between the paper and the drafting board while the architect was filling in the background, and appeared in several places because the rubbing had moved while he shifted the paper: the original intention is pretty easy to intuit, yet there are strong arguments to be made either for restoring that intention or the actual image. In this image the photographer's intention is unknown, yet upon discovery that the background is a courthouse I made several conscious decisions to emphasize an interpretation that appealed to me--that the photograph was about the difference between law and justice. Manual restoration also reconstructs tree limbs, paper grain, and various other undertakings which, if done well, escape the notice of all but the most careful observers. In nearly every restoration where fade or yellowing exist, such as the one under discussion in the present nomination, a manual restoration involves the decision of whether to evoke a sense of newness, as here, or to eliminate certain distracting elements while maintaining an impression of oldness, as here. During my time as an editor advice came from a variety of people that enough creative decision making was going into a large portion of my work to justify copyright over the restorations; I uploaded them as public domain not because they could not qualify for copyright but in order to donate the labor and encourage digitization of more historically valuable works. The same is true of several other editors. It was a random view of the Bastille Day article that led me to this page, by the way, and had nothing to do with any of the other commenters. Durova412 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Basically my point was that minor modifications in restoration is likely not copyrightable, extensive recreation of missing elements from damaged originals likely might be, and the rest is a very gray area and I think none of it has ever been brought up in a court. Adam was insisting to put his edits, even minor ones like this one, into CC copyright and asserting copyrights that he likely didn't have. As was pointed out to him by numerous editors at Jimbo's page and on the Common's mailing list that sweat of the brow likely wasn't even enforceable in the UK, and that many restorations are likely not copyrightable in the United States. There was a proposal for a copyright template for Adam's work poposed on Jimbo's page but I think the conversation died and it got archived before anything was worked out. I'm aware of many of your restoration works, and I appreciate your point of view but I'm fairly sure that MOST restorations of these public domain images would not qualify as granting the restorer copyright protection, except like I said in extreme recreation of missing sections of the original. Clone work, color corrections, removing age or minor damage, is unlikely unique enough to grant copyright. Unless your aware of some court decisions about this that I'm not, it's likely never been brought before a judge, so it's purely speculation if claiming copyright on these and then trying to sue to prevent unauthorized use would be upheld in court. Thats the only way to say for sure where the threshold point is here for restorations. Noone can stop you from claiming copyright on any of your works, but it boils down to what would stand up in court if you took it to court to prevent infringement. — raekyt 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Whether it is CC or PD for the purposes of this FP either status is free; and the restoration looks great. Raeky, do you think the pic now qualifies for your Support !vote? – Lionel (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have the source linked where you got Adam's restoration, that needs added, and Share Alike CC licensing is anything but free, it's EXTREMELY restrictive, and it's not what Adam released it under, I belive he released it under CC-BY, which is close to free, but not entirely free. So no, I can't support it as it is now. — raekyt 02:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Creative Commons is a free license. FP requires free content: if it were not free, I wouldn't be wasting everyone's time. In any event, I added the link and left a note for Adam about the license. I respect your opinion of course: I just hope you aren't penalizing me because of circumstances beyond me control. – Lionel (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Share Alike is one of the most restrictive clauses we allow in our licensing, it states "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." It restricts commercial use, where it was once public domain it is now restricted. And by WP:AGF I'm not going to accuse you of not knowing how to use license templates, but clearly the image Adam released, at http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d56h6gm (which is the link you need to use, which has licensing info, not a DIRECT link to the image, per our policies) states it's released under CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) not what you have it listed as, so you have the WRONG LICENCE for the image, that was the point I was trying to make. The whole issue is starting to rub me the wrong way, it's a silly fight, as far as I remember Adam retired from editing wikipedia because of this same fight in the past, where he wanted to apply copyright where it probably isn't due, and absoute horrid behavior, which he of course showed here in this thread. So as far as I'm concerned the project is probably better off without his battleground attitude, even if that means we can't use his images. But if you want to use his image, you NEED TO USE THE CORRECT LICENSE HE RELEASED IT UNDER AND USE THE CORRECT LINK TO THE IMAGE THAT DISPLAYS THE LICENSE. Ok? As far as I'm concerned Im done with this thread, between this, the e-mail bombing to the lists and Jimbo's tak page this whole issue has occupied far to many peoples time for far to long and by using his image your just prolonging and provoking this fight to continue, with all due respect. — raekyt 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for AGF, but as it turns out I'm not well versed in license tags, and a relative newcomer to images in general. Anyway, thanks for giving me the correct link and license, I've fixed the image page.– Lionel (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Share Alike is one of the most restrictive clauses we allow in our licensing, it states "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." It restricts commercial use, where it was once public domain it is now restricted. And by WP:AGF I'm not going to accuse you of not knowing how to use license templates, but clearly the image Adam released, at http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d56h6gm (which is the link you need to use, which has licensing info, not a DIRECT link to the image, per our policies) states it's released under CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) not what you have it listed as, so you have the WRONG LICENCE for the image, that was the point I was trying to make. The whole issue is starting to rub me the wrong way, it's a silly fight, as far as I remember Adam retired from editing wikipedia because of this same fight in the past, where he wanted to apply copyright where it probably isn't due, and absoute horrid behavior, which he of course showed here in this thread. So as far as I'm concerned the project is probably better off without his battleground attitude, even if that means we can't use his images. But if you want to use his image, you NEED TO USE THE CORRECT LICENSE HE RELEASED IT UNDER AND USE THE CORRECT LINK TO THE IMAGE THAT DISPLAYS THE LICENSE. Ok? As far as I'm concerned Im done with this thread, between this, the e-mail bombing to the lists and Jimbo's tak page this whole issue has occupied far to many peoples time for far to long and by using his image your just prolonging and provoking this fight to continue, with all due respect. — raekyt 03:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Creative Commons is a free license. FP requires free content: if it were not free, I wouldn't be wasting everyone's time. In any event, I added the link and left a note for Adam about the license. I respect your opinion of course: I just hope you aren't penalizing me because of circumstances beyond me control. – Lionel (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have the source linked where you got Adam's restoration, that needs added, and Share Alike CC licensing is anything but free, it's EXTREMELY restrictive, and it's not what Adam released it under, I belive he released it under CC-BY, which is close to free, but not entirely free. So no, I can't support it as it is now. — raekyt 02:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Whether it is CC or PD for the purposes of this FP either status is free; and the restoration looks great. Raeky, do you think the pic now qualifies for your Support !vote? – Lionel (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Basically my point was that minor modifications in restoration is likely not copyrightable, extensive recreation of missing elements from damaged originals likely might be, and the rest is a very gray area and I think none of it has ever been brought up in a court. Adam was insisting to put his edits, even minor ones like this one, into CC copyright and asserting copyrights that he likely didn't have. As was pointed out to him by numerous editors at Jimbo's page and on the Common's mailing list that sweat of the brow likely wasn't even enforceable in the UK, and that many restorations are likely not copyrightable in the United States. There was a proposal for a copyright template for Adam's work poposed on Jimbo's page but I think the conversation died and it got archived before anything was worked out. I'm aware of many of your restoration works, and I appreciate your point of view but I'm fairly sure that MOST restorations of these public domain images would not qualify as granting the restorer copyright protection, except like I said in extreme recreation of missing sections of the original. Clone work, color corrections, removing age or minor damage, is unlikely unique enough to grant copyright. Unless your aware of some court decisions about this that I'm not, it's likely never been brought before a judge, so it's purely speculation if claiming copyright on these and then trying to sue to prevent unauthorized use would be upheld in court. Thats the only way to say for sure where the threshold point is here for restorations. Noone can stop you from claiming copyright on any of your works, but it boils down to what would stand up in court if you took it to court to prevent infringement. — raekyt 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support: in my opinion there is no any problem and should not be a problem because it has good encyclopadic value. Justice007 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 17:16:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- A nice, high res shot of a jumping spider with her prey.
- Articles in which this image appears
Jumping spider- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids
- Creator
- Ironman br
- Support as nominator --Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Not much detail or identification. The older FP in the article (now removed) Jumping spider with prey.jpg does a better job IMO --Muhammad(talk) 10:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw Replaced this image with the older FP mentioned above in the article. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2012 at 22:46:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- Because it is clear, precise, and shows a lot of detail.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Digitalis purpurea
- FP category for this image
- Plants
- Creator
- Danesman
- Support as nominator --Danesman (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It hasn't been in the article long enough, the image that you replaced this with (File:Digitalis-stora hultrum.sweden-24.jpg) I think is a FAR better infobox image since it shows the whole inflorescence as opposed to this image which is a closeup. Ideally a herbarium specimen of the whole plant or at least one that also shows the basal leaves would be better, but of the two the old one is better. Can't support a closeup for this plant, since an image with the whole plant is highest EV. Unless there is a section in the article that specifically would call for a closeup then this image has pretty low EV for the article. — raekyt 12:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for your comments which is appreciated. Your comments will be taken on board for future pictures posted. I am new to this section and this is my first picture uploaded for nomination. The reason I took such a close up of the plant is due to this part being the most striking in colour and most opened. The part of the plant above still had closed sections and the more plant I got in the picture the less close up of detail I would of got in. I uploaded and replaced the previous picture because I thought this was more eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.Danesman —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- For infobox images EV (encyclopedic value) is of higher weight then visual attractiveness. File:Digitalis_purpurea_-_Köhler–s_Medizinal-Pflanzen-053.jpg would be a better infobox image for a taxonomic page than a closeup of one detail of the plant, in terms of EV. For featured pictures we look at EV and attractiveness, putting a very high weight on both. — raekyt 19:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for your comments which is appreciated. Your comments will be taken on board for future pictures posted. I am new to this section and this is my first picture uploaded for nomination. The reason I took such a close up of the plant is due to this part being the most striking in colour and most opened. The part of the plant above still had closed sections and the more plant I got in the picture the less close up of detail I would of got in. I uploaded and replaced the previous picture because I thought this was more eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.Danesman —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note and Speedy Close Thank you for your interest in Featured Pictures. I agree with Raeky that the previous lead image was better and have reverted, so this image no longer qualifies for an FP nomination because it is now in no articles. If you can find an article where it would be a good illustration then please add it there and come back to FPC after the image has remained in the article for a week. Pine✉ 04:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
oppose ill-frame al (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thankyou Pine for your comment, I have placed this picture back on the page but under its gallery section at the bottom of the page with its other pictures. Your comments are appreciated and will take on board for other nominations.
Alborzagros, to help me perhaps you could expand on your comment 'ill-frame' please? --Danesman (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2012 at 03:07:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- I belive its a high-resultion of a picture to show the act of putting on tefillin and praying.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tefillin, Jewish prayer, Religious Zionism, Shacharit
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology
- Creator
- Yoavlemmer
- Support as nominator --
– HonorTheKing (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC) - Support with note that this image also appears in articles other than Tefillin, and the use in multiple articles helps to support its evaluation of EV here at FPC. Good EV and image quality. Pine✉ 05:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have added the rest of the articles the picture is used in.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have added the rest of the articles the picture is used in.
- Comment: Re what Pine says - the position and future of the religious is also a hot current issue in Israel. NB: this photo illustrates what looks like a religious-Zionist Etzion-bloc-settler type . Plutonium27 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2012 at 14:45:39 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, EV and resolution. Few Indian or mosque related FPs
- Articles in which this image appears
- Jama Masjid, Delhi, Old Delhi, Mughal Architecture, Mosque and some lists
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question how recent is this picture? Is it possible to get a picture with whatever work the scafolding is/was for complete? For something as temporary as scaffolding it would be a shame if we couldn't get a photo with the work finished ie with the scaffolding gone... If however that scaffolding has been there for a long time, and probably will be there a lot longer, then I would consider a support. gazhiley 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- This was taken about a month ago but I have seen a few old photos with the similar construction supports. File:Jama Masjid-Delhi-India4282.JPG taken in 2009 had them. --Muhammad(talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- In which case then I Support as this is a good representation of the building then, and as far as I can see meets all criteria and is sharp etc. Thank you for checking up on my question. gazhiley 16:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- This was taken about a month ago but I have seen a few old photos with the similar construction supports. File:Jama Masjid-Delhi-India4282.JPG taken in 2009 had them. --Muhammad(talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per above. When the scaffolding is removed it would be good to get an updated photo. Pine✉ 19:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is pretty minor, but there is a stitching error maybe 50 pixels from the left and 1/5th of the way up from the bottom on the roof of the walkway thing. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a fan of the off-centre angle of the framing and midday lighting is very flat and uninspired - IMO there is really nothing about the shot to make it exceptional. File:Jama Maszid.jpg by contrast is a far more compelling shot (although sadly it is let down by poor image quality). --Fir0002 03:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually this was taken quite early, around 8 or 9 in the morning. --Muhammad(talk) 15:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- The shadows of the people would appear to be rather short...? --Fir0002 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's surprising. According to my estimation, this was around 7:30 in the morning. I remember seeing people brushing their teeth in the ablution part of the mosque and pigeons being fed (done in the morning). --Muhammad(talk) 11:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The shadows of the people would appear to be rather short...? --Fir0002 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually this was taken quite early, around 8 or 9 in the morning. --Muhammad(talk) 15:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose ill shot angle al (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I think the photo does a good job of portraying the subject and I don't think it has any major defects Azylber (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:13:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a beautiful painting, one of the most iconic in Brazil, and it looks great in digital form
- Articles in which this image appears
- Independence of Brazil
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Lecen and Centpacrr
- Support as nominator --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- oppose very dark al (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- support I think it's a very good image Azylber (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:19:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- We only have a couple of images on Commons for this species. The Southern Fulmar breeds on the coast of Antarctica, moving north during the winter months.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Southern Fulmar
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic al (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think a little more contrast at the high end would help. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean exactly. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- On any but the best displays, the white areas show no differentiation. Unless this picture was taken under severe overexposure, some simple curves work should fix the problem. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Darker in highlight areas is what you are after? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - I suspect you already did some highlight recovery, but maybe we can apportion some more contrast to those lighter areas? Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- No point with so little time to go now, sorry. I think what you describe would technically be a reduction in contrast, by the way. I intend to see if I see any more Fulmars on the sea in the next half dozen boat trips. If I don't see any, then I think I'll renominate the other image (which I feel ought to have passed anyway). JJ Harrison (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - I suspect you already did some highlight recovery, but maybe we can apportion some more contrast to those lighter areas? Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Darker in highlight areas is what you are after? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- On any but the best displays, the white areas show no differentiation. Unless this picture was taken under severe overexposure, some simple curves work should fix the problem. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean exactly. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 06:51:40 (UTC)
- Reason
- High Quality, Nice Framing, Encyclopedic, composition and quality and Good EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sanderling
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --al (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. One of the interesting cases where the photo would be just below our minimum specs, but one that I would be willing to support in spite of that. Per-pixel sharpness is excellent. JJ, can you advise if this is downsampled at all? If so, maybe you just need to upload at original res instead. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I decided to reprocess this a bit better - it was decidedly a little rushed - I had about 100gb to go through at the time. All the resolution I had is there now too. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Per pixel sharpness is still excellent. I want your lens. Don't want to carry it though. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I decided to reprocess this a bit better - it was decidedly a little rushed - I had about 100gb to go through at the time. All the resolution I had is there now too. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Only minor gripe (and it is very minor) is I wish the background around the head was cleaner (as opposed to the OOF rock) --Fir0002 03:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, same. I didn't have so much flexibility though, as I was on a boat. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support agree with Fir0002 but this is very good overall. Pine✉ 06:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Very good and nicely framed. Colin°Talk 11:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Calidris alba - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2012 at 07:22:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV, good angle, good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Duladeo Temple, Khajuraho India, Khajuraho Group of Monuments
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Sfu
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support good EV, image sharpness isn't great but the angle and detail are very good. Pine✉ 05:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great picture of a historic building. Love the colours - so striking. gazhiley 15:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Pine Spongie555 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot.Sanyambahga (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Pine and Nice shot. al (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Khajuraho Dulhadeo 2010.jpg --Julia\talk 14:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2012 at 15:02:35 (UTC)
._1113._Palace_museum,_Beijing.jpg)
- Reason
- One of the masterpieces of old Chinese painting (interestingly, made at the age of 18).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Wang Ximeng
- FP category for this image
- Artwork/East Asian art
- Creator
- Wang Ximeng
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support --P. S. Burton (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Considering the dimensions of the painting, this image seems pretty small. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not that it matters, but this should be interpreted as an Oppose. 600 pixels for a 51.3 cm tall painting isn't enough. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support but would be nice to have a taller version of this image, maybe a delist and replace will happen in the future, but this is good enough for now. Pine✉ 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Makeemlighter. We can do better. upstateNYer 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Pine. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Pine. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Wang Ximeng. A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains. (Complete, 51,3x1191,5 cm). 1113. Palace museum, Beijing.jpg --Julia\talk 15:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2012 at 18:43:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good EV, composition and quality. FP in commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Myrtle Warbler
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Cephas
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support – Great resolution. I have no complains. Plus, this picture is already a FP in Commons. ComputerJA (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Jkadavoor (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose definitely blurry around the bird's chest area. Pine✉ 05:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support Could benefit from fill flash, and stopping down a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support. And some sharpening. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Timid Support Could be a bit clearer, but has some potential. Oakley77 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Timid = weak?? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't understand that as weak. For a support to be 'weak', it should be stated clearly. If he didn't say 'weak', it shouldn't be regarded as such. If it was 'weak', I would have add this nomination to FPC urgents. Tomer T (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Read with the comment ("...has some potential") it sounds like a 'weak'. But maybe Oakley needs to confirm. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- If it's considered 'weak', I don't think it's a fair procedure. Tomer T (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Read with the comment ("...has some potential") it sounds like a 'weak'. But maybe Oakley needs to confirm. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't understand that as weak. For a support to be 'weak', it should be stated clearly. If he didn't say 'weak', it shouldn't be regarded as such. If it was 'weak', I would have add this nomination to FPC urgents. Tomer T (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Timid = weak?? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is this nom waiting for? As far as I can see, it has the requisite support regardless of what 'timid' means. Looks like a promotion to me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Only 4.5 if timid means weak. I asked the user to clarify a while back and got a response from another user that I didn't know what to do with. See User_talk:Oakley77#Your vote at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you interpret the voting system a little differently to me. I could be wrong in my interpretation but I thought the closer was supposed to count the total number of support votes (whether weak or full) needed to be 5 or more, then analyse support-to-oppose ratio (taking into account weaks here only) to see if there is a two-thirds majority to pass. Since there are six supports and a two third majority, I thought it was a simple pass. But I see your point if you count weak supports as 0.5 votes towards the minimum support votes required. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support excellent photo Azylber (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Azylber, as per above, voting ended on the 12th of June... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Diliff, sorry, I hadn't realised. My mistake Azylber (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Azylber, as per above, voting ended on the 12th of June... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 15:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Has been renominated. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Myrtle Warbler 2 Julia\talk 15:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 17:21:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- Great quality portrait, high EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- John de Lancie, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, The Return of Harmony
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Unknown; owned and released into the public domain by John de Lancie
- Support as nominator --Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. I know these actor headshots are designed to concentrate on facial features and grab casting agents' attention, but it doesn't translate that well into a 'traditional' portrait. His hair being cut off is problematic IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Stronger oppose. The tight crop creates more problems than the hair. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am a big fan of these kind of shots released into the public domain/under free licenses, and I'd love to support. Frankly, though, of the three this is my least favourite. I would be potentially willing to support either of the other two, depending on resolution; I'm having a little trouble accessing them... J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel Caseal (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:23:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- This petrel has a wingspan of around a meter. It breeds on a number of sub-Antarctic islands, and sometimes on the coasts of Australia and New Zealand. I think this is a very nice flight shot. I've rarely seen them on the water and my attempts from previous trips haven't been very successful.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Great-winged Petrel
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Sharpness/detail not quite as good as some of your other shots (presumably due to the highish ISO) but still very good. Nice angle on the bird. --Fir0002 03:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Very nice picture of a very nice species. Also, this is my first edit on Wikipedia! IamReallyReallyCool৳@₤₭ —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome, then. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Supporthigh q and nice frame al (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support The size-hike proposal would make this ineligible as most of the megapixels derive from the rather generous framing. However, I think that proposal needs to be binned as it stands now anyway, so I'll support. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The "proposal", wherein 2/3rds majority has been interpreted as consensus doesn't take into account the tightness of the framing, I don't think. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Pterodroma macroptera in flight 3 - SE Tasmania.jpg --Julia\talk 18:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2012 at 06:24:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality image, very detailed
- Articles in which this image appears
- Droeshout portrait, Portraits of Shakespeare
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Martin Droeshout in 1623
- Support as nominator --Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Ah, cool, I asked for this to be uploaded :) For what it's worth, though, I put it in the articles listed, but not seven days ago; come Wednesday, I was going to nominate it here, but didn't know if an IP could. Care to answer a long standing question? 86.185.178.114 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're free to nominate an image without an account. The restriction is that your support as nominator won't count. Julia\talk 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, too heavily cropped. There exists a lot more of Shakespeare's torso in this image; any featured version should include it. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Opposeper J Milburn al (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2012 at 15:53:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- Shows both the sticks and the powder form of cinnamon. For some time there has not been any addition to the food category.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cinnamon, Portuguese India Armadas
- FP category for this image
- Food and drink
- Creator
- Lviatour
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry. The focus is out and it's a little noisey. I think we can reasonably expect much better for a subject like this. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per J Milburn LOUD NOISES gazhiley 09:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The retouching hasn't done it any favours IMO. Per J Milburn, it isn't that sharp. And not particularly high res for a studio shot. Both the powder and sticks could be in sharp focus using stacking, or alternatively one significantly out of focus, but this photo is somewhere in between. Colin°Talk 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per aboveal (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Photo of the airport in Shangri-La, the mythical Buddhist paradise, that actually exists in Southern China, very very near to Tibet
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2012 at 21:15:36 (UTC)
,_Yunnan,_China.JPG)
- Reasons
- It's used across all the wikipedias that have articles about this airport. Namely: English Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, Vietnamese Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia and Basque Wikipedia.
- It adds significant encyclopedic value to all these articles
- It's verifiable
- It has a descriptive and complete description in several languages
- No inappropriate digital manipulation
- Good photo opportunity, taken at the right time of the day and at the right time of the year
- High resolution, nice colours
- Articles in which this image appears
- Dêqên Shangri-La Airport
- zh:迪庆香格里拉机场
- ja:デチェン・シャングリラ空港
- vi:Sân bay Dêqên Shangri-La*
- eu:Diqing Xianggelila aireportua
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Others
- Creator
- Azylber
- Support as nominator --Azylber (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Much too dark. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Even if properly lit it's still not a striking image; too cluttered for one thing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't say I agree about the clutter - there's nothing uneccessary in the picture and therefore it's a good representation of reality, however I also must agree it's too dark... gazhiley 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per aboveal (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem :) it's dark, but this is what this place actually looks like! Azylber (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- All day? I could understand a dark-ish photo used to illustrate how dark northern Alaska is in the middle of the winter, but here we're trying to just provide a picture of the airport to the reader to get a good understanding of what the place looks like. Being dark doesn't really help the reader in that regard. Jujutacular (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2012 at 10:40:09 (UTC)
- Reason
- Nice Framing, High Resolution, encyclopedic.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --al (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think we're seeing enough of the bird, and suspect Mr. Harrison thinks so, too. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- what do you mean? the bird is fully shown.al (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Except for the legs and tail, which are hidden in grass. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I did take this the other day, by chance. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer that one over the nominated image, but they're so common in Australia that I think we could probably get one that shows all of the body. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 05:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above - it is indeed a super common bird and I think JJ can come up with something better :P The alt he linked to is great for the crest being so visible, but I think we can probably get the feet in too (eg File:Sulphur_Crested_Cockatoo_Nov10.jpg) --Fir0002 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose These are very common and often very friendly birds, so it's possible to take a much clearer shot. As a note, they'd be considerable EV in a shot of a large flock of cockatoos on the ground feeding. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:13:13 (UTC)
- Reason
- encyclopedic and gorges.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Opal
- FP category for this image
- Gemstones
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator --al (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral Good but not stunning; EV to Opal unclear (if Boulder opal existed, that would be a lot clearer). --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support agree that if Boulder opal had its own article demonstrating clear EV then this might work for FP. Pine✉ 08:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2012 at 16:40:38 (UTC)
- Reason
- I propose this about-to-be-extinct frog be given renewed consideration amid its recent near success.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ecnomiohyla rabborum
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Brian Gratwicke
- Support as re-nominator --Samsara (FA • FP) 16:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Still cool--GoPTCN 17:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Even though focus is on wrong eye to me. - Blieusong (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support as nominator last time. A very precious and rare image, truely a treasure for Wikipedia. I'll miss you, Rabbs' fringe-limbed treefrog. Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. A truly precious image of a near extinct animal. If this photo is of the last known specimen, strong support. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- This photo was taken in 2011, before one of these frogs died. It could be the one who died in 2012, or the one who is currently the last known specimen. Tomer T (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support The flash is harsh but there's plenty detail of the frog due to the sharp focus and high resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
- Neutral as before. Pine✉ 08:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg --Julia\talk 18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 07:41:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- Large clear image, good technical quality, good illustration of the subject, already featured on Commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Thunderstorm in the section Cloud-to-ground lightning, and I just replaced images in the articles Lightning and Storm with this because this has better technical quality in my opinion.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
- Creator
- smial
- Support as nominator --Pine✉ 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The subject of the picture (the lightening) takes up a very small part of the overall image. The stricking colour and paterns of the cloud that take up over 50% of the image draw more attention to me. Otherwise a very clear and perfectly timed shot. gazhiley 08:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Lightning isn't necessarily the most important part of this photo depending on how the photo is used. This photo is also being used in the articles storm and thunderstorm. I understand your concern about the size of the lightning strike in the image, but in my opinion the size of the lightning strike in the image is not a very significant point in this case, and the context for the lightning is helpful for the viewer to see. Pine✉ 08:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- When the title of the nom states that it's about a lightning strike then as far as I'm concerned the lightning is the focal point... Or should be... gazhiley 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's use in both articles, specifically in thunderstorm indicates the lightning is the primary focus. As for a good EV for a thunderstorm, then this FP File:Anvil_shaped_cumulus_panorama_edit_crop.jpg would of course win, because it shows the full cloud formation... so Oppose here too. — raekyt 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are overreaching a bit, but I respect that you feel differently. I think that this nominated photo has better technical quality and size characteristics than the one that you linked, and if you look at this image full size I think the lightning is clearly seen at good size in the context of a thunderstorm. Pine✉ 08:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Lightning isn't necessarily the most important part of this photo depending on how the photo is used. This photo is also being used in the articles storm and thunderstorm. I understand your concern about the size of the lightning strike in the image, but in my opinion the size of the lightning strike in the image is not a very significant point in this case, and the context for the lightning is helpful for the viewer to see. Pine✉ 08:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- support--good quality Alborzagros (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose For EV on lightning it should really be the subject of the image, not incidental in the background. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- How many distinct lightning events did the exposure capture? Juliancolton (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 08:48:37 (UTC)
- Reason
- The "Flower portrait", a painting revealed in the 19th century, which was then believed to be the source painting which Martin Droeshout copied to the Droeshout engraving, but then later provied to be a fake, a 19th century painting impersonated to be a 1609 painting. The image has good detail, altough some unavoidable wear, and it also has the original signature/description and false date inscribed (see upper left corner).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Flower portrait, Droeshout portrait, Portraits of William Shakespeare
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Unknown
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support clear image, good EV. It's ironic that we're featuring a piece of artwork that's a fake, but the fake itself has EV. Pine✉ 08:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 15:33:27 (UTC)
.svg)
- Reason
- Doesn't have the "wow factor" of some of my previous maps, but that's because of the limited size and complexity of Tinian itself. Instead, it presents a clear outline of the way that US forces moved down the island, something largely missing from the original US military map which has been augmented with details from other sources. For once the compilation of sources were almost entirely consistent. SVG map with the usual associated benefits.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Battle of Tinian
- FP category for this image
- Diagrams, drawings, and maps
- Creator
- User:Grandiose from works by the US military and others (see file description)
- Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
CommentsThis is very good, though I have a two comments: 1) the 2nd Marine Division landed on 25 July after making a feint at Tinian Town on the 24th, and didn't land on 24 July as is implied by the current map 2) not all the "landing beaches" were in fact used to land the assault force - this battle is notable for the fact that only the two very small "White" beaches were used to land the large marine force (the other beaches were potentially usable, but were ruled out as they were defended - I think that some of them were later used to land supplies though). This map from the official US Army history of the Marianas campaign may be helpful in addressing these comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've made the suggested dating changes, I believe that that the second point is better covered textually rather than in illustration form. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
based on this thing being incredibly difficult and important and there really is quite a lot of thought in the composition of all the different elements. That said, I have some technical comments:
1. Add a compass arrow.
1.5 Consider rotating 90 degrees (wide aspect displays better on typical monitors).
- As a comment, that would make the map really confusing. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Consider the scale and the usage in article also the text). This sort of thing would work much better centered and large in article and then support the article discussion of the geography of the attack.
3. My father was in the attack, commanding a small amphib. And also later transhipped the atom bomb.TCO (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 13:40:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- Uncluttered and flattering recent portrait of an actor without looking either too posed or too candid. Not something we get very often. The resolution is good and although it's slightly soft, I don't think it detracts from the image or the EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Robert Sheehan
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People
- Creator
- Marie-Lan Nguyen
- Support as nominator --Julia\talk 13:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- opposite ill lighting al (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I quite like the lighting. This is not a formal portrait, so I don't expect the same control of the lighting. It's a slightly unorthodox portrait composition, but it seem to work quite well in this case. Sharpness isn't great at 100% but enough detail is there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Diliff --Muhammad(talk) 17:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks distinctly "posed" to me, in that well-worn "Now look soulfully into the middle-distance" way. Alas, the requisite secretive half-smile and the "alert gazelle" head-held-high together give him an unfortunate look of self-conscious smugness. But the real problems: the sharpness is a bit iffy and the "lighting" very much so: on the hair it emphasizes that its dyed and as for the shadows on the face - those on the forehead look like the skin has peeled off. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Aesthetics aren't our foremost consideration here at FP, and this photo meets the Featured Picture Criteria. Pine✉ 08:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Pine. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for nominating my picture and voting for it. I'd just like to mention RS wasn't posing for me: at the moment the picture was taken, another photographer on my left was trying to get RS's attention as he was leaving a theatre. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a faux pas at all, thanks for your comments. It's always good to get the photographer's point of view, especially when people make claims about the origin, processing or reality of the scene that only the photographer can confirm or deny. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Robert Sheehan MingFilmFest 2011.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 07:45:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- high technical standard, high resolution, free licence, adds encyclopedic value to articles in English and Chinese, is verifiable, has an informative description in several languages, avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
- Articles in which this image appears
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places
- Creator
- azylber
- Support as nominator --Azylber (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurred when viewed full size, and all buildings in the background tilted into the middle. gazhiley 08:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Uninspiring viewpoint. The encyclopedic value would be substantially higher if it showed the whole Square, not just the statue. --Asiir (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not match up to the nominator's claims nor the required qualities. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Which of the claims? Azylber (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject too small in the centre. Walk forward or zoom in. The tilt needs correcting too. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 07:02:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Encyclopedic, High quality, Good framing.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cirl Bunting
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Paco Gómez
- Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Hmm, this may be a controversial one. It's below our minimum resolution specifications by some distance. The frustrating thing is that it appears downsampled and I think it's cropped too tightly. If both of those were not the case, it would likely pass easily. It does also seem to have a slightly warm tint that perhaps could be corrected. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Added alternative, support either. This was taken in Spain (in winter, early to mid-morning), so the actual scene may have been warm in tint. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you aware that this fails the criteria now, as per my above comments? It's below our required resolution (which was raised recently to 1500px on the short side) which we waive only in exceptional circumstances... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you aware that I do not consider your criteria to have actually passed, as I consider discussion to be ongoing? Samsara (FA • FP) 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion has been going on for over a month, and consensus seems pretty clear. If that's not "passed" by your definition, then I haven't a clue what would be? Things like this doesn't go on forever, and not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye or agree, but the majority do agree, and there isn't really a big descenting group of people actively opposing, so it's as good as closed. — raekyt 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you aware that I do not consider your criteria to have actually passed, as I consider discussion to be ongoing? Samsara (FA • FP) 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Are you aware that this fails the criteria now, as per my above comments? It's below our required resolution (which was raised recently to 1500px on the short side) which we waive only in exceptional circumstances... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
*Support original someone could easily add a few hundred pixels of background image to this photo and leave the bird the same size to make the image qualify for the possible 1500 pixel on a side minimum. In this photo's current state, it's a good illustration of the subject. We can do a D&R later if someone gets a better photo. Pine✉ 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Change to Reluctant oppose after looking at the strength of support for the 1500 minimum. I will respect that consensus, and I think that there isn't a strong reason to make an exception to the 1500 minimum here. Pine✉ 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose WB off in both versions, small by any account. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose does not meet size requirements (by a long way). --99of9 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 10:41:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, EV, res, few Indian FPs
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah, Mirza Ghiyas Beg, Mughal architecture
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent detail (probably didn't need to be downsampled so substantially?), near enough perfect perspective correction and nice composition. A formulaic but excellently taken photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Diliff. No reason not to that I can see... gazhiley 16:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support good technicals judging by the above supports and clear EV. I would, however, like to stress that in my mind "few Indian FPs" is most definitely not a reason. The only question similar is whether this photograph on this topic is undermined in EV by us having better photographs of the same thing (it is not, the "Mausoleum" photograph should probably be removed). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have a strong objection as to why good images like Humayun's Tomb from the entrance, Delhi.jpg and Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg have been removed by Mr. Karim from the articles to adjust his own photographs.Sanyambahga (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is not really the place to discuss those changes, you should bring it up on the article talk pages. Muhammad added the images over 10 days ago and there has been no discussion or reversions since then, so as far as FPC is concerned, there is no problem. I personally think that his image is better than either of the images you linked to. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sanyambahga, is there an aspect of the two images that you linked which makes them more suitable for the Mughal architecture article that they were removed from? It seems the replacements are better quality and also very encyclopaedic. Would you mind explaining the objection further? Julia\talk 14:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the FPC should replace Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg as the lead image in the article Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah, but Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg should have atleast been inserted into the gallery by Muhammad. -- Sanyambahga (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think File:Itmad-ud-Daula 24.JPG does have a distinct EV as it illustrates the relationship between the gateway and the mausoleum. The scope of the article is the whole complex, not simply the mausoleum. As such is valuable and I re-added it to the gallery of the article. However this image is far superior in providing a detailed overview of the mausoleum itself. If the two would be of similar quality, I think it would be a reasonable debate as to which should be in the lead. --ELEKHHT 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose A symmetry shot has to be symmetrical. The lower third section with the path is out of whack, so it looks slightly tilted. The composition is unimaginative: a straight-on view, taken in harsh daylight (dimmed somewhat by the pollution haze) that bleaches out the colour and flattens tones, with no apparent consideration of the effects - negative or otherwise - of the shadows. An uninspiring postcard pic of a lesser-known monument in an area full of them. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be suspended if there's a dispute over its placement? I thought that was the usual procedure... Samsara (FA • FP) 08:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that there really is any significant dispute. Nothing has been raised officially on the talk page of the articles. As I mentioned above, the image has been sitting happily in the articles for 10 days without any disputes and it wasn't until the image was nominated that any complaint was made. I'm confident that the image can remain in the article as it's clearly the most detailed image available. Any dispute resolution would likely involve re-adding the removed images (if deemed to be useful), rather than removing Muhammad's image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that whether the dispute is brought up here or on the talk page is a particularly significant detail to the question of whether a dispute has arisen. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well any dispute should go through the appropriate channels, surely? Until such times, I don't think the dispute is in any way official. In any case, I don't think this potential dispute is grounds for suspension of the nomination. If against all odds, the image is removed from all the articles and becomes ineligible for FP, then we could always just run a delist. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that whether the dispute is brought up here or on the talk page is a particularly significant detail to the question of whether a dispute has arisen. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that there really is any significant dispute. Nothing has been raised officially on the talk page of the articles. As I mentioned above, the image has been sitting happily in the articles for 10 days without any disputes and it wasn't until the image was nominated that any complaint was made. I'm confident that the image can remain in the article as it's clearly the most detailed image available. Any dispute resolution would likely involve re-adding the removed images (if deemed to be useful), rather than removing Muhammad's image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Poor license and down sampled? -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)- Those are not valid reasons according to the FPC Criteria. The license is acceptable according to both wikimedia and wikipedia and the image is of considerably high resolution at 5.6mp coming from a 10mp camera --Muhammad(talk) 10:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strike off my opposition per the arguments by Muhammad.
(But I'm not sure why a document license is used for a media. I don't like people selling original works and gifting down-sampled/cropped ones here. I don't know whether this is a reasonable argument, not any evidence for any particular user.)-- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strike off my opposition per the arguments by Muhammad.
- Those are not valid reasons according to the FPC Criteria. The license is acceptable according to both wikimedia and wikipedia and the image is of considerably high resolution at 5.6mp coming from a 10mp camera --Muhammad(talk) 10:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As the image is not geocoded, if you remember, could you please specify in the description which façade do we see? --ELEKHHT 12:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- This was the view opposite to the main entrance --Muhammad(talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's from the west, thanks, support now. --ELEKHHT 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- This was the view opposite to the main entrance --Muhammad(talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I find some of the alternate photos of the buildings more interesting but this one has superior size. Technical quality and EV are good. Pine✉ 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support JJ Harrison (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:I'timād-ud-Daulah, Agra.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 15:10:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- Beautiful pose, trouble shooting and excellent quality for the encyclopedia
- Articles in which this image appears
- Buffy Hummingbird
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Wilfredor
- Support as nominator --Wilfredor (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support Alt 1. Image quality is not as good as what we've come to expect from other wildlife photos taken by other contributors, and the view looking up at the bird is not ideal, but it's well composed and we don't have a lot of images from this part of the world. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- On the assumption that this depicts a live bird and not a museum specimen, support. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, it does look a bit... stuffed. But I'm pretty sure it's not in a museum, as the effective 35mm focal length is 780mm (the camera sensor's crop factor is 5.2). That's a fairly extreme magnification for shooting an interior shot in a museum. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the aperture, iso, shutter speed combination is enough to rule out interior of a museum. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, it does look a bit... stuffed. But I'm pretty sure it's not in a museum, as the effective 35mm focal length is 780mm (the camera sensor's crop factor is 5.2). That's a fairly extreme magnification for shooting an interior shot in a museum. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support as in Commons. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support per Diliff. Amended description per original file and geocode: the image was taken on Isla Margarita, Venezuela. --ELEKHHT 12:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose this isn't "among Wikipedia's best work" for technical quality. Pine✉ 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good enough for me. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose 'original': It looks like it's been cut-out. There are white margins in places and blurry edges in others. (Which isn't as noticeable in this larger resolution version.) Julia\talk 07:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. I prefer the other version actually. I don't think it's been cut out so much as poorly sharpened with a large radius, giving a bit of a halo effect. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Julia. The original is not only larger in dimensions but considerably larger in file size, so something's been lost (though that might just be noise). The original has also had a colour "fix" though I've no way of knowing if that improved things. Although the reduction in size hasn't seemed to lose much detail, it wasn't necessary as the original wasn't offensively blocky or noisy. Re: the stuffed look. The whole (original) picture has a strange quality. It reminds me of an illustration (rather than photo) of a bird in one of my dad's v old encyclopaedias. The current article version has been damaged by the smoothing manipulations, which affect the bird's outline and cause a halo on the branch. I'd support the larger original per Diliff's comments and those made on Commons FP about the difficulty of making this shot. Colin°Talk 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alt 1 added. A little bit of noise removal from Wilfredor's bigger original. Julia\talk 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support alt 1. Julia\talk 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support the proposed alternative. The problem is that it isn't the one in the article. This isn't Commons. What do we do here? Colin°Talk 22:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Use common sense instead of procedure. If one is stable in the article, the other should be too. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't think we need to be too precious about making the switch in the article. There is no fundamental difference between the images, only improved image quality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since we seem to be in agreement that the proposed original lead image was unsatisfactory, esp. when compared to the larger original or Julia's alternative, I've replaced the lead with Julia's. I agree for such a minor change that we shouldn't need to wait a week or anything, but just wanted to make sure we promote (if we do) an image that is actually in use! Colin°Talk 10:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- In the past, the closer has been clever enough to replace the article image with the one which has passed. I know this does create the potential for friction, but I don't believe there has been any problems in reality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Since we seem to be in agreement that the proposed original lead image was unsatisfactory, esp. when compared to the larger original or Julia's alternative, I've replaced the lead with Julia's. I agree for such a minor change that we shouldn't need to wait a week or anything, but just wanted to make sure we promote (if we do) an image that is actually in use! Colin°Talk 10:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't think we need to be too precious about making the switch in the article. There is no fundamental difference between the images, only improved image quality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Leucippus fallax.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 01:12:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image is one of the most beautiful I have ever seen. It is full of rich colors and high emotion and is of a very high quality.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Descent from the Cross, Early Netherlandish painting, Museo del Prado, Renaissance art, Rogier van der Weyden, Swoon of the Virgin, The Descent from the Cross (van der Weyden), The Entombment (Bouts)
- FP category for this image
- no idea
- Creator
- Rogier van der Weyden
- Support as nominator --Rvjog (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I would support the version showing complete framing once it scores the required 7 days. Brandmeistertalk 15:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The other picture is better.--GoPTCN 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Dcoetzee is not the creator. --99of9 (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There is no need to identify it by its Spanish title. Van der Weyden wouldn't have called it by this name and we have a couple of acceptable English titles, most commonly The Descent from the Cross. Yomanganitalk 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 11:32:17 (UTC)
- Reason
- Encyclopedic and High quality, Has a free license
- Articles in which this image appears
- King's College, Cambridge, Bernard Williams, Cambridge,River Cam,University of Cambridge, Luigi Pasinetti
- FP category for this image
- Education
- Creator
- User:Solipsist, Author Andrew Dunn
- Support as nominator --Danesman (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose A nice enough picture but it has been "resized for the web" down to just 0.7MP and 218KB. Colin°Talk 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not keen on the angle this has been taken at. I will admit I don't know enough about Kings College to know if all the buildings are connected, but the white building to the right obscures the majority of the building with spires; the aforementioned white building is partially obscured by trees, and the long building to the left is cut off. A further out shot, from an elevated position would provide a much better angle and thus show the buildings better. I'm sure I remember seeing the central building from an elevated position on a television program so I would like to think a better picture is available... gazhiley 12:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- The buildings too the left are part of Clare College, but the buildings to the right are part of Kings. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Too low resolution to have sufficient EV for the buildings in the background, and for the landscape the framing is too tight. Not a bad composition, although the tree on the right appears somewhat uncontrolled. Nice image but not FP. --ELEKHHT 11:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is a bit awkward. The photo appears to have been taken from the meadow across from the college, and I think that the photographer could have obtained a much better result from walking a bit to his left. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. As with Elekhh, I'm not seeing FP quality here. It's a pretty stock composition - which isn't to say it's bad, but it does mean that it needs to distinguish itself against the hundred other shots from the same spot which are on flickr. It definitely needs the left side buildings in frame so as not to look cut off; including more (or none) of the tree on the right would also be a good idea. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 17:26:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality, EV, resolution. Featured at commons
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tomb of Humayun, Humayun, Mughal emperors, Mughal architecture, Turko-Persian tradition and more
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It seems that all four façades are very similar. Which one do we see here? --ELEKHHT 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is the view from the main entrance --Muhammad(talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- On Google Earth the main entrance is indicated on the West. But according to the metadata the image was taken at 13:26, which with the given shadows makes it look as the Southern facade. Can you please confirm? --ELEKHHT 03:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I checked with Google earth and I'm pretty sure this is the West facade. The actual time was around 4:30pm (metadata time is incorrect) --Muhammad(talk) 10:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I modified the file description accordingly. --ELEKHHT 12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I checked with Google earth and I'm pretty sure this is the West facade. The actual time was around 4:30pm (metadata time is incorrect) --Muhammad(talk) 10:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- On Google Earth the main entrance is indicated on the West. But according to the metadata the image was taken at 13:26, which with the given shadows makes it look as the Southern facade. Can you please confirm? --ELEKHHT 03:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is the view from the main entrance --Muhammad(talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition. Out of focus fountain spray in the centre of the image is very distracting and ruins the image for me. Either it should have included the fountain fully, or the shot should have been taken in front of the fountain and the spray avoided. --Fir0002 10:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I don't find the spray too bad. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very Weak Oppose I wouldn't go as far as mentioning a poor composition, but I think Fir0002 is right otherwise. A pity. - Blieusong (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Fir0002, the fountain spray is distracting. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 09:27:16 (UTC)
- Reason
- This historic video has enormous encyclopedic value. The ad aired only once, on September 7, 1964. I speculate that few people outside of a poli sci or marketing class have ever seen the full ad. Although it has been imitated repeatedly.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Daisy (advertisement), Campaign advertising, Attack ad, Fear mongering, Political Psychological Rationalization, Timeline of modern American conservatism, Culture during the Cold War
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
- Creator
- Lyndon B Johnson's 1964 Presidential campaign; uploaded by Lionelt
- Support as nominator --– Lionel (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support strong EV. Pine✉ 07:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support concur with reasons already given. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support The ad's historical message is still important today. Brandmeistertalk 20:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Educational for a wide variety of purposes. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
for history, but...fucking Johnson...grr...TCO (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Technical comment: you should really show the thing with the girl (the as on FP picture). There is some setting where the whole video is there and plays from the start, but you show a particular instant. Not sure why that is not the default choice for voting.]]TCO (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. – Lionel (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Technical comment: you should really show the thing with the girl (the as on FP picture). There is some setting where the whole video is there and plays from the start, but you show a particular instant. Not sure why that is not the default choice for voting.]]TCO (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support. How is this not featured already? (Maybe because no one could find the early version with the simpler tagline "In your heart ... you know he might." Main Page on U.S. Election Day! One of the best attack ads ever! (and it's PD) Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support Maile66 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Piling on. Dusty777 17:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Very strong enc., educational. SpencerT♦C 03:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 21:42:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very superb looking image. This image says a thousand words about the men working in the mill, the log drivers who brought the wood to the mill, and this image is just a piece of American history of the pulp and paper industry that is slowly dyeing.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Brown Company
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
- Creator
- Russianamerican1
- Support as nominator --Russianamerican1 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose First, I would like to see proof of this photo's public domain status, As the high quality (no grain at all) lends me to believe it was made after 1923. Second, even for a subject which no longer exists, this is paltry quality. For 500x300 size, it should be a much more notable event pictured; I can't imagine there aren't more and better public domain photos of this subject.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Close Fails size criteria. Dusty777 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Dusty. It is little more than a thumbnail. And the nominator is reading far more into the picture than is present. I see hardly any factory/mill, just a chimney and a bridge. Could be almost anywhere. Colin°Talk 07:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 22:40:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- Like the Beth Shak image below, this promo shot of musician Plan B was uploaded by The Rambling Man. It was taken by photographer James Dillon and has been released to Commons through the OTRS.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Plan B (musician)
- FP category for this image
- People/Entertainment
- Creator
- James Dillon
- Support as nominator --A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It is great when professional pictures of artists get donated. This is certainly a useful picture for the article. But it is too small to be featured quality. Also the chap's fringe shows some artefacts, perhaps over-sharpening when downsized from 21MP to 1.9MP. As a pose, I think we should see a little more of the eyes than we do. Colin°Talk 07:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that saying "it is too small to be featured quality" is too decisive a statement to be in accord with either the old or new criteria, as both allow for unique images (and the latest one also for "difficult" images). Samsara (FA • FP) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing about this image that justifies its tiny resized-for-web size, other than that was the limit the generosity of the donation (though sometimes the contributor actually thinks we'd prefer smaller picture, perhaps to save disk space, or because the don't see why we'd need a larger one if we only show it as a 240px thumbnail). I don't see any reason to make an allowance for the minimum size requirement. It is a deeply ordinary shot anyway. We'll start featuring any old shot that is in focus and reasonbly exposed next... Colin°Talk 10:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that saying "it is too small to be featured quality" is too decisive a statement to be in accord with either the old or new criteria, as both allow for unique images (and the latest one also for "difficult" images). Samsara (FA • FP) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not sure that this promo shot is the best candidate for a featured picture, generally speaking, because it shows what the album label/photographer wants you to see, rather what the person is really like. Well, unless this guy is camera-shy anyway. Agree with Colin, the lack of visibility of his face doesn't help. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose agree that more visibility of the face is preferable. Pine✉ 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I like the lighting and the backdrop, but overall the gazing-out-into-the-distance composition just seems awkward... --Fir0002 10:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with most of the other oppose reasons. Simple portraits obviously do not have mitigating circumstances for the size not meeting the criteria. --99of9 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. The composition is excellent, but his not looking at the camera takes away from the EV considerably. Dusty777 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 22:21:51 (UTC)
- Reason
- This high-quality image of professional poker player Beth Shak has been donated to the Wikimedia Foundation by Douglas Sonders, and (I believe) was handled through the OTRS by user The Rambling Man.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Beth Shak (lead image)
- FP category for this image
- People/Others
- Creator
- Douglas Saunders
- Support as nominator --A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support There hasn't been something like this for a while (although slight crop may be warranted). Brandmeistertalk 08:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Low EV as I wouldn't guess she's notable as a poker player from this image. If there would be a joker sticking out somewhere... Also staged images are non-neutral, but rather promotional. --ELEKHHT 11:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Low EV. As Ms. Shak is not an interior decorator, far too much of this shot is occupied by a tastefully-appointed apartment; as Elekhh notes, this image's composition does nothing to link Ms. Shak to poker. While on a personal level I don't mind looking at photographs of women with pretty bodies, this image could be of any generic glamour model—its EV is harmed by the way that it minimizes her face against so much pleasant-but-extraneous matter. Truth be told, this image is high-enough resolution that there's a not-too-bad (featured-quality resolution, but not featured-quality composition) head-and-shoulders crop that would probably be better from an EV standpoint; I've uploaded such a crop for comparison but not voting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: although I'm not opposed to photographs of people not doing the things for which they are known, the promotional nature, stance and composition doen't lend themselves to it being a clear portrait of the person. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support the image does seem promotional and unrelated to poker, but it wouldn't be out of place in the collection of existing Featured Pictures at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment, so I don't feel there is sufficient grounds for an oppose on the basis insufficient EV or the promotional pose. Someone is welcome to do a D&R later with a photo of her playing poker. Pine✉ 07:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support High quality portrait image. If she was only a poker player then I probably wouldn't support for the reasons above (would be better to have some kind of context or a more neutral/natural candid shot) - however per the article, she is also a fashion designer (women's shoes in particular) and this justifies the glamour photo IMO --Fir0002 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose She is not a model, so zero EV. Just another picture with boring background (is this a fridge next to her?). Also it is rather promotional.--GoPTCN 13:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have several promoted photographs of people that are portraits rather than them doing the thing(s) for which they are famous (one example). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think the fame of the subject may change the criteria slightly. Sammy Davis Jr is unquestionably a notable figure. Beth Shak isn't, and interest in her should be related to her poker playing, not her (provocative, in the case of this photo) appearance or her lifestyle. robo (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have several promoted photographs of people that are portraits rather than them doing the thing(s) for which they are famous (one example). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose It is great to get high-quality full-resolution professional photographs. But, as noted at Commons, this is surely not the best photo taken during that shoot: her left foot is off the ground and her knee sticks out against the door. And it is more about her fine apartment than her personally. I note that we have a high-EV photograph of her File:Beth Shak.jpg which isn't FP quality but more appropriate for the article. However, it was removed from the article for non-encyclopaedic reasons (see talk). She's notable for the poker aspect and nothing else as far as I can see. I don't buy the fashion designer justifying glamour shot claim (read the article carefully: she collects shoes and plans a range of fashion, according to the unsourced text). If she was a fashion model or tv presenter then perhaps the pose would be appropriate. Colin°Talk 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Finally someone points out the dislocated knee cap! 131.137.245.209 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- (Strong) oppose this is a PR photo with next to no EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support Per Colin. I don't see anything in the criteria that says a promotional picture has any less EV then a non-promotional picture (a picture is a picture.) I believe that we are supposed to judge nominations by the criteria, and vote based on those set guidelines, not come up with a random reason to oppose (with an exception to Colin who actually found some minor flaws, and I agree with most of his concerns). I see no reason for opposing due it possibly being a promotional picture. Dusty777 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The reason is one of much higher importance than the FPC guideline, it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the neutral point of view principle, which states that articles should "document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner". Promotional is not impartial. And since there it is only one image in the infobox, and in the whole article, the representation is not impartial. --ELEKHHT 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Balance is a luxury we can rarely afford for pictures, particularly for people. We pick from a very limited choice so tend to include any reasonable picture. And photographs, of any quality, are nearly always posed so naturally present a positive side of the person. When judging EV, we're looking at just one photo, so it can't sum up the person in their entirity nor can it be balanced on its own. It helps EV if the picture shows off an important aspect of their personality (such as the sport they play, or career). I don't think we should rule out promotional pictures, indeed for someone who is a "star", a promotional picture has higher EV than some random snapshot of them walking down the street. I agree that this promotional picture has low EV but a promotional picture of her playing poker might have great EV. Colin°Talk 14:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Very much agree with the last sentence. However, I can only assess EV in the context of the whole article, not simply by "looking at just one photo". And while no single image can "sum up the person in their entirety", five documentary pictures will provide a much more comprehensive and balanced representation than five promotional ones. --ELEKHHT 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Balance is a luxury we can rarely afford for pictures, particularly for people. We pick from a very limited choice so tend to include any reasonable picture. And photographs, of any quality, are nearly always posed so naturally present a positive side of the person. When judging EV, we're looking at just one photo, so it can't sum up the person in their entirity nor can it be balanced on its own. It helps EV if the picture shows off an important aspect of their personality (such as the sport they play, or career). I don't think we should rule out promotional pictures, indeed for someone who is a "star", a promotional picture has higher EV than some random snapshot of them walking down the street. I agree that this promotional picture has low EV but a promotional picture of her playing poker might have great EV. Colin°Talk 14:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The reason is one of much higher importance than the FPC guideline, it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the neutral point of view principle, which states that articles should "document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner". Promotional is not impartial. And since there it is only one image in the infobox, and in the whole article, the representation is not impartial. --ELEKHHT 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tell me, what makes a promotional picture different then a non-promotional picture? Elekhh, can you elaborate a little on how the picture being a promotional picture affects the NPOV? It seems to me that is an issue with the article... I don't see how that affects the nomination. Dusty777 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the others but in my mind it's not about neutrality; it's about the fact that the photograph is staged so as to show off the subject is a glamour sense and not about documenting what she actually looks like for an encyclopedia. The staging here detracts from how well it illustrated the subject for the encyclopedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do think this is missing the point. "Documenting what they look like" isn't generally why people commission photographs or even permit photographs to be taken. I don't see any passport photographs making FP. Would you expect a high-EV photo of Audrey Hepburn to be anything other than staged to show of a beautiful actress? This kind of photo might be appropriate for another biography article, but seems unjustified and inappropriate here. What next? Boudoir photographs for Olympic athletes? Colin°Talk 15:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- (undent, re to Colin) no, I don't think so. We do have publicity FPs (off the top of my head, the Stephen Wolfram one and some of performers); they certainly can be good illustrations of the person: this one isn't so much; I'm neutral because I think it does a pretty good job. Other than that you've lost me with the rest of your post. Boudoir photographs are very unlikely to illustrate the subject well, that's quite the point. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- purely on the opportunity to make shack up jokes.TCO (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 15:27:26 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and good detail, good pose and expression. High EV picture of an influential singer, by a notable photographer.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Frank Sinatra
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- William P. Gottlieb
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support very good EV, good quality. Very appreciative of William P. Gottlieb's donation. Looking forward to more FP nominations from the collection. --ELEKHHT 11:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I'd prefer a clearer photo but given the age of the photo, the placement as lead image in the article, and the size of the scan, I'll support. Pine✉ 07:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support --GoPTCN 13:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- TCO (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per Pine. Dusty777 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Azylber (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Frank Sinatra by Gottlieb c1947- 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 15:22:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- After the previous nomination got somewhat-stuck and is in an unclear situation, I decided to try nominate this picture in a new vote, and maybe that will make things more clear. See rationales there.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Myrtle Warbler
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Cephas
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support I think it's an excellent photo Azylber (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good quality--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Brandmeistertalk 19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose again blurry in the center of the bird including the yellow feathers. Pine✉ 07:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Not the sharpest bird photo we have, but still acceptable. Clean background is very nice. --Fir0002 10:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Pine. Bird is kind of soft, not entirely in focus. Dusty777 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Setophaga coronata MP.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2012 at 12:19:32 (UTC)
- Reason
- Has a free license, high quality, no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise or other processing anomalies. Has the main subject in focus and is in good composition with no distracting elements.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Anguilla, Cap Juluca Hotel
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- tiarescott from Beverly Hills, California, USA. Uploaded by myself to Wikipedia
- Support as nominator --RaviC (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice beach. But like sunsets, such images aren't hard to achieve given the chance. The image is below our new minimum-size requirements. I don't see how the hotel article would survive an AfD. Non-notable as far as I can see. Colin°Talk 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough I suppose about the minimum size requirements. I will have to try and scour Flickr for a larger image. Whilst the hotel article wasn't written by myself and it may well not be notable enough, the real reason why I had nominated the image was for its use in the Anguilla page (Tourism is one of the largest sectors of employment on the island). Regards. --RaviC (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Context and size set aside, the composition leaves much to be desired. The loud bank cut off on the left side of the shot creates a very incomplete feel, and overall the framing is very arbitrary and seems non-deliberate. Juliancolton (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2012 at 14:47:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is an extremely clear as well as aesthetically pleasing photograph of a fruiting Eurasian Gooseberry plant growing wild.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Gooseberry
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- RobinMiller
- Support as nominator --robo (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. OK, I'll bite. Unfortunately the subject is underexposed due to the bright background. The composition is also fairly lacklustre. Finally, you don't seem to have actually added the image to the article that you mention above, so it's ineligible for featured pictures. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Suggest Speedy Close then on the basis that it's non-inclusion makes this ineligible? gazhiley 07:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2012 at 13:41:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV, good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mottled Umber
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
- Creator
- Holleday
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Half of it's body isn't in focus. Too soft. Dusty777 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2012 at 13:34:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Another try for this picture after this nomination. I think it has satisfying quality, good EV and nice composition.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Befreiungshalle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support--GoPTCN 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Azylber (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great detail. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Not overwhelmed by the wide crop (or lack thereof) but the building is shown clearly and thus the photograph contributes significantly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support Too wide crop, but otherwise perfect. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Befreiungshalle Hall of Liberation Kelheim.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)