Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 04:33:21 (UTC)
Original – Malaysian Plover (Charadrius peronii), Laem Pak Bia, Petchaburi, Thailand
Reason
High quality photo of a small bird found in an environment with no natural cover. Significantly more numerous than the White-faced below. Shows all plumage and is useful for identification. Compliments the photo of the female in the article well.
Support JJ Harrison should work for the National Geographic. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd prefer if the bird wasn't tagged, but the picture itself is great. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I wish the image was a little larger and more detailed. Also, the tags are a slight minus, at least for use in articles that don't discuss tagging. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added some information to the article about a large-scale color-banding study. It appears there have been several, and indeed this individual looks to be wearing different kinds of bands, as if from different studies, but it's quite plausible that one of its bands stems from the study I cited (or another of the studies listed under References in the article). It appears this species is being extensively studied because of concerns about tourism impact on its habitat, and in that sense the color-bands add to EV. Chick Bowen 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Charadrius peronii - Laem Pak Bia.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 04:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Admittedly it does look a bit murky, particularly in thumbnail, so doesn't stand out as much as some other bird images, but that's largely to do with the dark coloured bird against the dark background. I'm also assuming a number of these recent noms are taken in pretty tough lighting conditions, so while a little more DOF would be nice, there's probably only so much we can expect and there's good detail on the body and head where it's most important. Article is disappointing. --jjron (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dark birds are difficult to capture; this is well done --Muhammad(talk) 05:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Garrulax strepitans - Mae Wong.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 04:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ21 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose sharpness is too lacking to be a Featured Picture. --Pine✉ 23:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Too little of the bird in focus. I understand it was probably a difficult shot to take, so my !vote is subject to change if JJ can account for that fact. ceranthor 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It's too near the size limits for other issues. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 00:11:28 (UTC)
Original – Buff-banded Rail (Gallirallus philippensis), Lord Howe Island, Australia
Reason
The bird wasn't too shy, so the pic worked out well. Meets criteria IMO: High quality, nice colours, good light, active posture. This is a ground bird, so this is about the best you can hope for in terms of background separation.
Strong Oppose Below minimum pixel count, for a 100m lens it should be much larger, reason why it's uploaded this small? — raekyt 00:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand if you oppose based on pixel count alone (sorry, I prepared and uploaded this before the new rule came in, and forgot to check that aspect on nomination), I do not understand your 100mm comment at all. I think you must have got your calculations the wrong way around. For example, JJ's lens is 7 times more powerful than mine, (and his sensor is higher-res too), why would you expect a 100mm to get higher resolution than his 700mm (+extender?)? In fact I only got similar res, and the opportunity to use ISO100, because my subject was much closer than his. I've uploaded the original photo using the full sensor so you can check the crop: uncropped. These birds run away from people, and you just have to lie in the grass inching forward until one ignores you. --99of9 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I can vouch for 100mm being pretty tough going for birds. Each picture should be judged independently of the equipment used in my view though. I'm sure 99of9 was much closer than I was. For the shot I took the bird pretty much cleared out of the reeds as I was blundering by. Then I got a couple of shots and it was gone again. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best lens for bird photography; but I'm happy with the result (comparing with other pictures available, including the failed one by JJ). You may increase a bit more pixels by using a more generous crop with more space at left and top. JKadavoorJee 06:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Gallirallus philippensis Lord Howe Island 1.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 00:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fine example of Mucha's Art Nouveau style, advertising a notable play, in a performance by one of its most popular interpreters. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Please add a reason for nominating. If nothing else it's helpful to be able to get an idea of what the nominator sees in the image that makes it worthy of becoming an FP. It may be just the poster but the focus seems very soft. I'm impressed that it's such a large image and seems to be in good shape though. Cat-fivetc ---- 16:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's soft focus so much as it's just lighter-colour ink than normal: we generally see dark blacks on this sort of thing as a sign the poster's in focus, but that doesn't work when that's not the intent of the artist, and you get an optical illusion. (Also, the stars are reflective silver ink, which can't be perfectly reproduced digitally) Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tried some sharpening, looks better now IMO. Brandmeistertalk 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support captures, I think, the spirit of the original very well. (Looks surprisingly pleasant at full resolution, too.) Thus the EV is strong because it communicates the artistic values of the work. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 19:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality image, good illustration for the article. --Pine✉ 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - EV is really good, image has a great resolution. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Alfons Mucha - 1896 - La Dame aux Camélias - Sarah Bernhardt.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 16:03:15 (UTC)
Original – An Oklahoman boy during a dust storm, 1936
Reason
This is a historically important image. It doesn't have amazing placement in the article but it does a good job of showing a person of the area as well as the dust storms.
Support Very fine portrait of a small boy during an event of historical importance. Iselilja (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've another FP and it seems the boy is same in both pictures. JKadavoorJee 05:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not finding a lot of EV, especially given that article already has at least two FPs which much better convey the situation as it occurred (as Jkadavoor has also pointed out, one of which, taken by the same photographer at the same time, already shows the same ankle-biter); this therefore becomes not really not much more than a portrait of this boy. As a portrait I'm personally not particularly taken with the composition, and quality for such isn't great, even considering the age. --jjron (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This shows a dust storm in the background which is what gives it EV, whether that's enough is up to each voter I guess. I'm pretty sure we've promoted pictures in the past with the main article topic being in the background (fires, floods, etc...), although no specific noms come to mind off the top of my head. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the image quality and other factors I don't think it does show a dust storm - honestly it's hard to distinguish between what may be dust and what's just I suppose film grain, although I'm not sure it's even just grain rather than other degradations in quality (compare the 'dust' on the boy who's very near the camera with the 'dust' further back in the image; there's not much difference). And while I don't doubt that there's a bit of dust blowing around (I certainly wouldn't call it a storm) it is much better shown in several other images in the article, including the lead image which is already an FP taken at the same time and place as mentioned above. Maybe if the boy was cowering from the effects of the so-called dust storm, covering his eyes, turning his head away from it to protect his face, hunkering his body down, etc, his reaction to the depicted storm may give it EV, but not what we see here (ever been caught in a really strong wind on a beach for example where you start getting sand blasted? An adult, much less a small child, wouldn't stand there calmly like this). --jjron (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going off the original caption (which is the same caption I used for the nomination) in saying that it was a dust storm. I guess we have no way to really know whether it's just noise or whether he's really in front of a dust storm although if it's the former and someone comes up with a good way to back it up then that image should be moved to 1920's, great depression, or some other article that's time period not event specific. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this photo adds EV in its current placement in the section "U.S. Government response". --Pine✉ 23:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section placement may be unfortunate but the image adds EV to the article in that it shows a person of the period with one of the dust storms in the background. I have to assume the placement has more to do with only putting one picture for section than anything else since the higher sections on the article, with the exception of causes, already have one picture per section. If I were to change that now I'd be rightfully accused of changing an article just to support an FPC as well as screwing up the formatting. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could make a stronger argument for this photo's EV if it was in the section "Influence on the arts" especially if the caption noted that the photographer was from the Farm Security Administration since the article credits that agency for documenting the Dust Bowl era through photography. I can justify changing my vote to at least "neutral" if the photo was placed in that section. If this nomination fails then I suggest that you move the image, wait a week, and re-nominate. --Pine✉ 04:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and just move it, explaining the reason in the edit summary. Because there's no other image in that spot already and it doesn't substantially change the article I don't think it was a controversial thing to do or likely to get any response, much less a negative one. Cat-fivetc ---- 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now please do something to the caption in a way that demonstrates the photo's relevance to the section "Influence on the arts". --Pine✉ 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the caption from the article, if you can think of a better one feel free to suggest it or change it yourself but that's a basic description of what the image shows. Cat-fivetc ---- 15:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried doing this myself but I came across this current FP which I think is better suited to the article in the place of the nominated image, so I'm going to stick with my oppose vote. I feel strongly enough that the Migrant Mother image is better that I plan to replace the nominated image with the Migrant Mother image after this FP nomination closes unless this nomination passes which seems unlikely. --Pine✉ 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose almost no EV. — raekyt 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. A good one for Commons, less so for here. J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 17:21:25 (UTC)
Original – Map of the Battle of Jutland, the only major naval confrontation of North Sea area of the First World War, I believe.
Reason
A second nomination for the file. During and since the first I've taken on board some of the points that were raised (e.g. Wilhelmshaven; Cologne). I feel it's a strong file that was held back by be tested against being even better. Whilst I don't feel that's an unfair standard on SVGs, editable as they are, I think there comes a point where we've done what we can and depending on what you guys can come up with by way of criticism that point may have been reached.
Articles in which this image appears
Battle of Jutland and a dozen others about individual ships that took part in the battle.
FP category for this image
Maps and Diagrams
Creator
Grandiose based on a US military source and supplementary information from OpenStreetMap
Support as nominator --Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before. It improved a lot during the first nom. Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent map which fully meets the FP criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but tiny, weak oppose. It is improved from the previous version, but its graphics is not really appealing with the 3x repetition of "Battle of Jutland", 2x the north sign, the distracting four legend/title boxes each of different size, and the capital city of Oslo not labelled. Still find it confusing on a map of a 1916 battle, to see labels such as "1917" with the same font, and both combatants being green, but I understand this might be a question of personal taste, while veterans would be fine. Most of all, as a new reader, I don't find the map facilitating the understanding of the article. --ELEKHHT 13:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have updadted it to include Kristiania (with a note on the description mentioning that it was the name for what is now Oslo) and I have made the boxes in the side panels the same size, removed two instances of the "Battle of Jutland" header and shrunk the north arrows - tin my opinion they're important for continuity between the panels. I have added a note to the filedesc about military timings. (The image didn't seem to update, but I think it's a purging sort of a problem. If Kristiania isn't marked, then that is not the new version.) Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think all those small simplifications make the map clearer, so I no longer oppose. --ELEKHHT 21:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent map. —Ynhockey(Talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm no expert on the Battle of Jutland but as a non-expert I think I get a reasonable idea of the ships' movements from this map. I see no glaring technical issues. There are a few things that I might tweak if this was my own map but I think this is good enough as it is. --Pine✉ 20:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 17:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if this is image noise or jpeg artifacts? Some sort of quality deterioration. Jujutacular (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like JPEG to me. Oppose. Pity, though: If it weren't for that, this would've been a fine FP. Adam Cuerden(talk) 20:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose back-lighting not ideal. — raekyt 23:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose DOF issues and I don't think that just the head of an iguana has much EV. Nice shot, just IMO not good enough for FP. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It still have some details, but the image is nonetheless impressive. A clean shot, although a full body pic would be better. — ΛΧΣ21 01:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ΛΧΣ, for a species page, we should show the full organism. — raekyt 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear and professionally taken photos. And the three photos are put together in a meaningful and aesthetically balanced way. Iselilja (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Iselilija. I wish the image on the right was fully in focus, though. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was a little hesitant at first - not because it's not a good image, but because wide images are hard to get to fit in articles, and I was worried it'd get moved or shrunk down to low-EV sizes. However, there's been consensus having such a poster since April 2010, with the only change being the old one getting updated to the similar, albeit better quality and higher value, new one nominated here. Since use in articles is a requirement for FPs, and the width of it will limit how many articles it appears in, I was glad to see that sort of stability. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. — ΛΧΣ21 01:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a single poster. I think it is better to keep the pictures individually. It will not affect the presentation as in the page but more convenient for reuse. Further it allows to replace any individual picture by choosing an alternative according to the user's taste. I can see other pictures are available from the same contributor himself. It will be easier for us to replace a single picture in the page if we ever get a better one too. Good presentation though. JKadavoorJee 08:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Hi Jee, what you say about reusing the individual pictures makes all sense in Commons, which is a media warehouse, not here. In Wikipedia pictures are supposed to illustrate articles and it is the success of such purpose that we evaluate in FPC. Anyway, I will provide the links to the individual images in the picture file. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Partially agree; but I can't see a reason to promote the poster instead of the individual images. They can be easily inserted in the page exactly as how the poster is inserted. I do't want to encourage people to start making composite pictures with or without texts unless there is such a requirement. JKadavoorJee 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two reasons why I prefer the poster version. First (the rational one), because a poster forces the images to be together in the article, which is a protection against the very usual process of replacing pictures, both for the good and less good reasons; second (the sentimental reason) because I still remember (not of your time, I'm afraid) the colored pages in the middle of the old paper encyclopaedias... That was the reason why I started, in Wikipedia and Commons) this type of composite images (here). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the point that a lot of good pictures are replaced by new inferior quality pictures. It is common practice by most photographers (including me) to try to insert/replace with their own pictures to as many pages as possible, neglecting the redundancy or degradation in quality it causes. This is one of the reason I refrained from self nominations. But I don't think composite images will solve this issue. Instead it create the difficulty to replace individual better pictures. I always expect the best pictures of different contributors in a collage as in the FPC gallery.JKadavoorJee 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good quality. Also just about the perfect time for this shot -- we see him in all of his gear, but his mask is off so he is identifiable. I'm a little concerned with the composition however. I understand that it was probably cut off just above his knees in order to keep the mask in the shot, but that leaves the composition a bit uneasy in my opinion. It may be worthwhile to message the photographer and see if he has a wider shot that shows his full body length, if anyone else agrees. Jujutacular (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full bdy should have been better, but it would be difficult to find another one like this. — ΛΧΣ21 00:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good EV but the focus does not seem to be on his face and there is quite a bit of noise. --Muhammad(talk) 05:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I just don't like the crop, and the posing seems a bit ungainly, although the latter is probably the protective equipment under his shirt as much as anything else, which is forgiveable. Adam Cuerden(talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Pine✉ 20:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose: Although it illustrates tree branches nicely, I don't see anything particularly special about it. Pirated windows 7 install disc (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support has good EV showing the structure of branches on a tree. Calhountalk 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As with a couple of noms last week, description page needs to be in English for enwiki as per Criterion 7 (is it that much to ask that nominators please take to checking this before nominating). --jjron (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 7 says nothing about requiring the description page to be in English. Also, the description page is on Commons, not English Wikipedia. --Pine✉ 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud the criterion is "Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description". That can hardly apply if an English speaking person can't read it! This is not Commons, it is the English Wikipedia. While non-English speaking people are welcome to use it, it is not a multilingual Encyclopaedia, there are other versions if you want to use one in a language other than English and I'm quite happy for you to nominate this at sk.wikipedia.org without an English description. What do you think would happen to an article that was nominated at Featured Articles that was written in say French? Well funnily enough Wikipedia:Featured article criteria also doesn't specify it has to be written in English, so why don't you go ahead and nominate something there written in a foreign language and see what happens? Let's have a bit of commonsense please! --jjron (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the image for its value on English Wikipedia, not Commons, but the description page is on Commons. I am wary of one Wiki such as English telling another Wiki such as Commons what to do with its pages such as the image's info page, I'm used to working in multilingual enviroments so changing from one language to another doesn't bother me, and I'm reluctant to enforce rules that are not in writing, but I see your point that readers on English who click on the image would benefit from a caption in English, so I'll edit the description on Commons. I'm also going to start a discussion on the talk page proposing that Criteria 7 include a requirement that the description must be in English. --Pine✉ 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw after taking another look at the image, the quality is not good enough when viewed full size, and after looking more at Criteron 7 I think this file could use a fuller description. --Pine✉ 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- In the process of building Portal:Games, I happened upon this image. I asked Muhammad Mahdi Karim if he thought it was FP quality (as he's active here and had recently made edits when I decided to ask someone), and his answer convinced me to nominate this. Note that this is not a WikiCup nomination, I had nothing to do with this image except for finding it already uploaded. Sven ManguardWha? 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be negative here, but that's only just barely over the minimum size, and a lot of that size is made up of context-free whitespace. If we can get this bigger (and possibly from a different angle - a bit more to the right and down and you'd see a lot more of the insides), it'd be very good as an FP, but given its effective size is about 1000x1500px... I just don't see this passing. Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I noticed that, and I agree it's a shame. For some reason I've yet to internalize that the minimum size has jumped from 1000 to 1500, but I did notice that there's just a ton of white surrounding the machine. I would love to have a pinball machine FP, they're such interesting machines and their cultural impact was significant, but if this one isn't it, this one isn't it. Sven ManguardWha? 23:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's annoying. It may be worth writing the museum, and pointing out that getting the image onto the mainpage through FP would serve to advertise their museum, and see if they respond. Durova used to be really good at that sort of thing, so I know it can work. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It would be worth doing what Adam suggests though to get a higher resolution --Muhammad(talk) 01:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They've already gotten back to me, it's only a matter of time, I think. Sven ManguardWha? 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it's below the size limit. Why was it ever raised from 1000 to 1500 anyway? I personally think 1000px would be a better minimum. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, because having larger limits encourages people to seek out better files. The old limit wasn't 1000x1000px, it was 1000px on one dimension, which was probably a bit small. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded; size of "Original" is now 5,409 × 5,409 pixels. If someone would like to make a cropped version using the new size, I encourage someone with better knowledge of proper cropping to do so. Sven ManguardWha? 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are definitely covered under the OTRS? Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I did the ticket update myself. Sven ManguardWha? 03:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't updating the file, as in, you couldn't look at the large version - a common bug at the moment - so I moved it to a slightly more descriptive name. This may break a few usages until CommonsDelinker plays through. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Commons has bugs. The one that gets me is the thumbnail not updating one. So as to the OTRS situation, what I do in these cases is I forward the entire email chain to OTRS, and then merge the new conversation into the old ticket. It just makes everything easier. The ticket for the new conversation is 2013012610001245, which was merged into 2012101510001125, the one linked in the file description page. Thanks for promoting me to try and get a bigger version. Sven ManguardWha? 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting it so fast. Oh, er, Support if it wasn't clear. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@all: Should we use the square or the crop? No one has specified their preference for one or the other, and if we're going to use the crop, we need to update the crop to use the new size? Sven ManguardWha? 04:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not QUITE so close of a crop; perhaps half the whitespace? It feels a little tight as it is, Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose EV here is quite minimal, sure it's a pinball machine, but it's a HIGHLY modified one. I can assure you when that thing came out it wasn't in a plexiglass box. An image of an original machine, would be vastly more EV. — raekyt 23:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was built by the museum specifically to show what the innards of a pinball machine look like. That's the point of it. See this write up. Sven ManguardWha?
I still don't see high EV for the general Pinball article... — raekyt 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's obvious that I disagree, so I'll leave it by saying that my personal view is that it's extremely high EV because not only do we have an image of the functional product, but also the ability to see the insides, something we rarely get with complex machines. And now I'll stop badgering the opposition. Sven ManguardWha? 02:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop. Agree with Sven about the high EV. —Bruce1eetalk 12:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop The point is to see the innards. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Visible Pinball III - Pacific Pinball Museum cropped.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 01:09:15 (UTC)
Original – Otemon and Main Tower of the Osaka Castle, one of Japan's most famous castles and which played a major role in the unification of the country during the sixteenth century.
Reason
A good quality image of the Osaka Castle and its surroundings, holding a high encyclopedic value.
Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ21 01:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent photo with strong EV. Having stood exactly where this photo was taken from (or possibly a few floors lower in the Osaka museum building) I can attest that it's an excellent angle, and possibly the best available - when I visited the museum a local made sure that I took a version of this photo!). Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a reasonable picture, but cut off at both sides and the bottom (I assume the castle basically finishes beyond the moat, so could probably allow for the picture ending in the water if we could see the whole width of the place). If it's just meant to be illustrating the main tower, then it doesn't do that particularly well (other images in the article do that better). This may well be the best place to photograph this place from but it would need either a wider angle lens, or to stitch a small panorama, in order to capture the whole castle. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jjron. FWIW I feel the background buildings are actually a nice contrast from the foreground, and shows the change in architecture nicely. But I can't help but agree with the subject being cut off. gazhiley 11:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Photo shows a contrast between old and new, but in composition it's just a great photo. Colors are balanced and natural, the lines of the moat, castle walls, causeway, even the background skyscrapers all draw the eye to the main tower of the castle. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, the castle was actually re-built fairly recently after being destroyed by bombing during World War II, so it may actually be newer than some of the buildings in the background! Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True; I guess I could say "old and new styles". Boneyard90 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with gazhiley about the nice contrast. I have boldly edited the article ArchitectureHistory of architecture and made this the second lead image. I think the image has strong EV for that article. --Pine✉ 05:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing my vote while a discussion about the image's appropriateness for History of architecture is happening. --Pine✉ 20:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where such discussion is happening? I see nothing on the talk of History of architecture. — ΛΧΣ21 02:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. I realized like ten minutes ago. Seems like a user is challenging the inclusion of the picture in those articles. Although, I think that the primary EV on the article about the castle stays intact. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 02:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High-resolution free screenshot of a commercial game, there's really not many of these around. As well as that, the game has a wonderful and unique art style.
Support I might not know photography, but I know video games. I think this is a good screenshot, and it's well used. Sven ManguardWha? 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support File size acceptable for a screenshot, no other major issues. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ21 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, yes, yes! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppse I think the bench is a bit too distracting, and it's cropped a bit too tight for my liking. But the main thing is that the image page says "own work", which it isn't. Permission must be given by AutomaticStrikout Snr. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. For what it's worth, AutomaticStrikeout Sr. gave me permission to call it my own work and he helped me upload it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not your own work, so you can't say it is. If AutomaticStrikeout Sr. offers to take the rap for your speeding ticket you might get away with it, but it doesn't make it right. AutomaticStrikeout Sr. can give you permission to upload it and you can do so on his behalf, but it's still not your work and it needs to be correctly attributed. But to give credit where credit's due, at least you were upfront about the misattribution. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a while before I can fix that and I'm not even sure how to do so (this is my first upload). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It'll only take you about a minute. Simply click the image to access the image page, scroll down below the pic to where it says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.", click the link on the words "description page there", then simply edit the summary data for the source and author. See this example for what you could write. Technically I think you're meant to forward through an author's permission to Wikimedia, but in my non-legally-binding-opinion in cases like this that isn't really necessary. Sorry, not meaning to be a pain to you, but uploading images can be a bit of a chore, and I can bet there'd be thousands of people who have done the same as you without ever admitting to it. --jjron (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I may not get the chance to do that for a while, as I don't get to access the Commons site very often. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the reader-friendly version of the license, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". If the author/licensor agrees to be known as "AutomaticStrikeout's dad" "AutomaticStrikeout Sr.", then he can be credited under that pseudonym. "Own work" is still out, though. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 04:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tightly framed, the lighting in the bottom left is so bright it's distracting, and the image itself is very grainy. gazhiley 11:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As per the image above, the image page needs an English translation. --jjron (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than the current lead for Beppe Grillo, and the images in that article indicate that the picture is typical for him. But I'm just not willing to support when it's only used as part of an effective gallery of politicians who ran in an election. Adam Cuerden(talk) 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was of course the lead image when the vote started, and for man than seven days before it started. Someone changed the lead image during the vote, and I returned it, as it is of course far better. Regarding the translation, I don't know Italian - maybe someone can refer some Italian-speaking Wikipedian to the vote and ask him to add an English translation at the image's page? Tomer T (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only very limited Italian, but Google translate gives me "Beppe Grillo at the banquet of Movement 5 Stars in Piazza Dante in Trento for the collection of signatures for the presentation of lists in the general election of 2013.". That's pretty clumsy but sort of makes sense, and could easily be turned into something that sounds like it was written in English, especially with a bit of fact checking to work out exactly what it's referring to. If that was sorted I'd be inclined to support. --jjron (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrasing "Beppe Grillo at a banquet of Five Star Movement in Piazza Dante in Trento for the collection of signatures for the presentation of lists in the general election of 2013" is quite clear. Searching about it in Google, I found this reference (search for "16 December"). Tomer T (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, so unexpectedly there is an article about Five Star Movement (it's actually this dude's political party so this image may well be able to grace that article too). There's also a Piazza Dante (Naples), although given it says Trento that must be a different Piazza Dante as Trento's up north and Naples is more down southern Italy. So perhaps we could have "Italian politician Beppe Grillo at a Five Star Movement banquet for the collection of signatures for the presentation of lists in the 2013 Italian general election. Trento, Trentino, Italy.". However I don't understand the terminology "for the collection of signatures for the presentation of lists"; can anyone explain what this means? It's not something I'm familiar with from our political systems. Maybe it makes sense, or maybe there's a translation issue that needs to rephrased. --jjron (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's either registering voters (voter lists), attempting to meet a threshhold of signatures to have a candidate listed, or possibly something to do with a regional list - in some forms of voting, you put forward a list of candidates for a collection of seats, then get a number of those seats assigned to you based on your proportion of the vote, starting at the top of your list and working down. If they have a system like that in Italy, he's probably trying to get the number of signaatures necessary to present his list for consideration on the ballot. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per above, once image page is adequately Englishfied. --jjron (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have translated the description. Jjron, "firme" is not signatures here, but is colloquial for "notables." Chick Bowen 04:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above I just ran it through Google Translate. Better take it up with them. ;) --jjron (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But FWIW this simply underlines my point about why we need the image page descriptions in English for enwiki. --jjron (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the author of the photo. "Firme" means "signatures": in Italy parties have to collect a certain number of signatures as a candidacy requirements. I'm sorry I didn't but an English description when I uploaded the photo. Thanks for considering my photo as a FP. :) --Jaqen (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meets the technical requirements for FPC, and is photographed cleverly, clearly showing the shape of the body part in question from the superb angle at which it was taken. Additionally, it was clearly not taken with the intention of appearing erotic, but instead informative. The natural lighting is good, and the shot is at the right distance to give a sense of perspective but not introduce distracting elements.
Comment I believe this to be a valid candidate, but I think the FPC page should stay SFW. Although, it should never become POTD. Calhountalk 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this a bit, it's a decent photo with good EV so I'll support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H. W. Calhoun (talk • contribs)
Note -- this user (as well as the nominator) has been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of User:Wagner. Jujutacular (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support until the image is moved to more informative title. I have nothing against making it a POTD per WP:NOTCENSORED and given that the image is not that explicit. Brandmeistertalk 13:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A person taking picture of their own crotch does not scream FP to me --Muhammad(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artistic composition is all well and good, but it doesn't make for particularly high EV when the subject of the image is human anatomy. The background is distracting (the plaid green and the feet) and the angle is awkward. Of the two images that are used in the mons pubis article, I feel that the more useful is the second one, although that one also has compositional issues. Honestly, the most useful image for that article would probably be File:Vulva labeled english.jpg or something similar, because of the labeling. File:Mons pubis 05.jpg would probably also work because with that you could give the location in reference to the pictured woman's thumb. Sven ManguardWha? 21:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So... the nominator has been indeffed. What happens now? Sven ManguardWha? 05:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Reaper Eternal is blocking users with little evidence and expecting people to clean up the rest after him again. I say the nomination should remain because people have already voted on it. Calhountalk 11:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nom remains. If there was evidence of sockpuppetry or the like we would strike those votes, but given that most (all?) others that have voted are long time regulars there's little evidence of that. We could end up not counting his vote as is done with anon IPs, but I can't really see why given the block appears to be only to do with the choice of username. Obviously if another random newbie comes along and votes on this there would be a strong suspicion it was the same person so we would be unlikely to count any such votes. --jjron (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. In my comment above I AGFed on User:H. W. Calhoun who has now been identified as a sock of the nominator. Given this, and the nature of the discussion below, I'd be happy enough for a Speedy Close on this. --jjron (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nom made in bad faith, clearly a poor candidate, the fact people are even considering it as appropriate for the main page makes me worry about the state of the project... J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree it wouldn't be a good candidate for the main page, but "Featured Picture" ≠ "Must be on the main page". Sven ManguardWha? 16:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know- it was in reference to Brandmeister. I would have thought that if we were talking about an image like this, it would be with the assumption that it was not going on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very disturbing photo that doesn't seem like FP material to me, even if composition is ok. ZappaOMati 18:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really don't see how a shaved mons pubis has true EV, when the natural state is for it to be covered with pubic hair. Considering how much this normally matters for nature photos, I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. This picture has a poorer composition than the other in this article.Terri G (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 15:11:29 (UTC)
Original – The Scorpion Pass, a winding road in southern Israel
Reason
The image is the best photograph of the Scorpion Pass (Ma'aleh Akrabim) in southern Israel. It displays the pass in its entirety, but does not have any unnecessary details. In addition, the image was taken from the air and in reasonably high quality, creating a wow effect. It has primary encyclopedic value for Route 227 (Israel), but also for other articles (not necessarily used at this point), such as Operation Lot and Combat Engineering Corps. The image was also a finalist in the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 competition.
Support as nominator --Ynhockey(Talk) 15:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we get the image page translated into English - see Criterion 7? Not for nothing, but this is English WP not Commons, so it needs an English description (I don't even know what language it's in; Hebrew I guess). --jjron (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have translated the caption. —Ynhockey(Talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ21 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - there is a spot on the top left. If it's removed, I'll support. Tomer T (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're talking about a minor blemish and not color correction etc., I have taken the liberty to remove the spot without uploading the image under a different name. —Ynhockey(Talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I removed the "conditional". Tomer T (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (agree with Tomer T about the spot) -- Colin°Talk 18:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh for a high powered Rally Car and permission to close the road temporarily....... Nice picture, a little blurred in places but not on the actual road which is the main thing... Not going to get a better picture of the road in its entirity... gazhiley 10:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice photograph with good framing. - Darwinek (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --ceranthor 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job on the black background. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Now that JJ Harrison mentions it, it is. Oppose. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I had noticed that parts of the image were fuzzy at full-res. I suppose that everyone has a brainfart every once in a while. ceranthor 04:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My light tent arrived and I have tried to produce this a couple dozen times. I have finally focus stacked this version so that everything is in focus. I have found an angle at which the software seems to be able to perform as designed with this subject (which was no small task). I seem to be unable to get this black subject dustfree. The particles keep showing up in different places no matter what I do. However, they are not problematic in any of the uses of this image.
Oppose Dull lighting, tilted, colour cast, insufficient detail, dirty. The image is also reduced 50% size. Have a look at this, this, this, this and Canon's own product shot here. In all of these, the product is absolutely spotless. The lighting is carefully arranged to pick up the ribbed (focus?) ring at the top, the textured black plastic body, the polished metal mount, and the cylindrical shape. In some, there's enough resolution to pick up the ribbed texture of the Canon logo. I'm not a fan of light-tent shots as it is too easy just to nuke the subject from all sides -- fine for ebay I suppose. Look at how Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax light and shoot their products. Colin°Talk 09:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel that any of the shots you are having me look at are in focus? Those are mostly pretty terrible jobs at presenting the subject. They mostly show the cylinder surface in focus and nothing else. Some show the front ribbing around the lens in focus. None of them present all the text in focus. They all also reduced the shot to a small enough size that dust is not problematic. I can produce shots that appear fairly dirt free at those resolutions I think. My lens actually does not have a textured body. Some of those appear pebbled. Not all of the examples that you point to have textured bodies. I can make it brighter and a custom white balance might take care of the colour cast. In order to get the metal mount, I will have to use the 70-300mm lens from 5 ft away since the free versions of the stacking software don't seem to work on this subject from an angle that will show the metal mount. I have to figure out how to get the ribbed logo texture. I may give it another go later tonight. It may be the case that you have to remove the dust in photoshop to get this shot. I am not sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every sentence you wrote is wrong. Please take the advice I gave on the FPC talk page. Colin°Talk 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong about some things, but most of those images are low res like the thumb of this above where dust does not show. I doubt most of these are spotless. Nonetheless, they don't present all the text from front to back in focus. I guess my image has problems. I don't see any recent comments on the FPC talk page regarding this topic. I see comments from about 3 days ago on using commons, but that is about it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all those images are much lower resolution than yours and are sharper and more detailed even when they are smaller. What makes you think front-to-back sharpness is an essential feature? I've only linked to examples of the same lens. The internet is full of examples of high-quality photographs of camera equipment. This shot of the lens from HireACamera in particular, is so pristine, slim, black and silvery that I want to go out and hire it from those guys even though I shoot Sony. Believe me, they will have taken pictures of a brand new lens, and cleaned it up very carefully before shooting it -- nobody wants to spend hours with the clone tool (though they will have used that no doubt because it is impossible to remove all dust). My advice was to buy a book (such as the one I linked) on lighting and join some photography forum specialising in taking studio product shots. There are loads. You may also want to consider a macro lens. FPC is not a beginner's forum or tutorial. I want you to take lots of great pictures for Wikipedia, but you need to take a different approach to learning. Colin°Talk 20:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People have told me to stack this for depth of field (which I view as synonmous with front to back sharpness). I am starting to feel I need better equipment than I have to take macro shots for FPC. I thought jumping up to an SLR would make FPCs possible. However, I have mostly intermediate and entry level lenses, tripods, flashes and such. Solid black subjects are probably the hardest to shoot cleanly. I will focus on other stuff. I imagine that the reason that the only lens at FP is a 2005 nom is because it is pretty hard to get them right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppse per Colin - the colours are odd and the lens is (still) covered in dust. Also, the photo hasn't been in any articles for a week. Tony, I agree with Colin's suggestion that you cease using the FPC process as a tutorial in how to take high quality photos as you're wasting everyone's time and are probably violating your topic ban against uploading images related to yourself. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly forgot about that topic ban, but I don't think it means don't take pictures of objects that have articles on wikipedia like this, other lenses or my main image at mixed nuts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think about the one regarding myself, because I don't feel it affects my editting activity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world does that topic ban have to do with this image? Tony is not a camera, is he? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I assume correctly that the above support cannot be accepted as unsigned? Does anyone know how to work out who this was? If not, I would suggest it is struck off so that it isn't accidentally counted... gazhiley 10:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah cool... No idea how to find that! :) gazhiley 09:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the nomination page and click history at the top. All edits are listed there --Muhammad(talk) 10:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much oblidged. gazhiley 13:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would make an awesome "Where's Wally" picture, if Wally was a bee! Great detail - a little blurred in places, but understandable given the speed of these critters, and I think the heavily blurred background actually helps this picture. Happy to support... gazhiley 10:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where was the photo taken, and reason for species ID? — raekyt 13:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, slightly blurry at full size, but not that bad, nice colors. Brandmeistertalk 12:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, huge wow, nice EV. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Impressive picture! —Bruce1eetalk 12:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a smidgen sharper, but quite good. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I think the framing is too tight, even if the lighting is nice. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Focus is around those nearest trees just across the lake which is why the mountain itself is so soft (in fact it's out of focus) - given the EV is for the mountain then that should be in focus. Agree with JJ about overly tight framing. Also looks like it may be overly manipulated, e.g., mountain in reflection is entirely different colour to the orange mountain itself. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Pine✉ 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's good insofar as it goes, but wouldn't this be better done as an animation, rotating about the vertical axis, say? Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : As far as I can tell it's impossible to know what the blue grid is doing unless you can rotate the image to understand the three dimensional disposition of the points. I work with these surfaces on occasion but can't tell what this diagram is supposed to show. A simpler distortion and / or smaller grid might make it clearer. ProfDEH (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 08:46:45 (UTC)
Original – A small paddle boat floats tied to its mooring in Lake Bondhus, a glacial tarn in Norway.
Reason
Meets three out of four of the featured picture photo manipulation guidelines but point three can easily be forgiven. The only noticeable difference from the original is some cloud-like shading at the ridge of one of the mountains in order to mask some distracting light. This enhances, rather than detracts from the value of the photo in keeping with the spirit of all four guidelines. This is last year's Wikimedia Commons picture of the year and a featured picture on de.wp and fa.wp. Let's quit dragging our heels and elevate this to featured status. I am also putting material together for an article about the lake itself.
Strong Oppose WAY too noisey in the water and cloud. almost looks like they were filled in using MS Paint... Plus unless it can be proven that the background has permanent cloud, then I would like to see this being re-taken on a clear day. It might be a nice looking picture, but it's no-where near FP standard in terms of quality, and EV is lacking with a third of the picture being in cloud. I also take a little offence at the bullying tactics of the demand to "quit dragging our heels"... Not exactly going to get a lot of editors on your side with comments like that... gazhiley 10:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment You should always mention previous nominations of an image if it was nominated before, this one was nominated before and failed. First Nomination. Also the digital manipulation is that it's an HDR image. — raekyt 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWhat noise? Anyway, I really do think the push for "Let's not show how things typically look" when it comes to an insistence that weather and clouds never appear in images reduces encyclopedic value for a lot of featured pictures. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just zoom in on any of the water... In particular in the water below the posts on the left... Everything is just so grainy, and you can see the individual pixels... Maybe "Noise" isn't the right term for it, but it looks horrific zoomed in... gazhiley 13:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible you was zoomed in? I can't see what you're seeing at full resolution... — raekyt 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I was zoomed in, hence why I said to zoom in to see what I was refering to... I'll have a look at this later on another device to see if it's maybe the machine I'm on but I doubt that it is as otherwise every other picture would be the same... gazhiley 09:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I Supported this last time it was nominated. I think it has tremendous EV. Dusty777 02:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The extensive discussion at the last nomination was useful, though it appears Alchemist has taken down the three photos he used to create this one. The feeling was raised last time that the photos used are too far apart from one another in exposure. I believe that circumstance is responsible for the shiny, almost metallic feel of the colors in this image. I also think the boat moved a millimeter or so between exposures, giving it that strange sense of being cut out of its surroundings. The caveat to my vote here is that I am suspicious of this kind of exposure blending anyway. My solution to the problem posed by this landscape: ditch your overly precise digital sensor and use a nice, high-dynamic-range black and white film. Chick Bowen 22:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modern black and white photos never pass FPC, as people dislike the intentional removal of information that causes. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've passed some... — raekyt 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm well aware. Why do you think I've never nominated (or uploaded) one of my own photographs? Chick Bowen 03:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support as long as the caption says it's a HDR image. Brandmeistertalk 16:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Lovely picture to hang on your wall, but overly processed and artificial looking for an encyclopaedia FP. Also seems to have limited EV. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit on the fence about this one - while it's a wonderful photo, I'm not sure about the EV. I'm not at all familiar with this castle, but it seems that the other side of the ruins are less obstructed given that they seem to face straight onto the hill. Moreover, this photo doesn't really show why the castle was built in that location - presumably it was to stop enemy forces moving up the valley, but that isn't clear from this angle. From looking at the photos linked via Google maps, this angle seems to have much stronger EV, though the composition isn't as nice. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one does, though, have the advantage of placing it in context. The question would be whether the context from the other direction was more significant... (It was me who added it to the article.) J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both views add EV, I don't see why we can't have one of each featured. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration, support per Adam; this angle doesn't seem to have the strongest EV, but it's good enough. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 21:54:44 (UTC)
Original – Qutub Minar, UNESCO World Heritage Site in the old city of Delhi
Reason
Is of a high technical standard, Is of high resolution, Has a free license, Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article, Is verifiable, Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description, Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation
Articles in which this image appears
Qutb Minar
FP category for this image
Qutb Minar, Delhi, Tourism, India, UNESCO World Heritage Site
Support as nominator --Sarindam7 21:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Too dark (probably due to the weather), too blured especially on central tower, and top of tower cut off... gazhiley 09:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose problems with the composition (both top an bottom cropped) and technical quality (lack of detail, dull lighting). --ELEKHHT 13:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Picture is not proper and some of the parts are missing Mydreamsparrow (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best maps of a national park on Wikipedia, providing detailed geographical information about the park, as well as the villages within the park and the adjacent mine, while being simple and visually compelling.
Support as nominator --ELEKHHT 11:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after comment addressed - Finally another Indonesia-related file. I generally don't vote on maps, but since this is kinda my area... Original sources need to be indicated, already available at the French file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copied. Please be bold when dealing with minor issues like that. Cheers. --ELEKHHT 11:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we were at FAC I would have (and have done, for licenses, several times), but since you may nominate another map in the future... men, fishing, teaching... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: no indication of the colour scale (although the peaks are shown, the overall pattern isn't). Secondly the large number of seemingly unnamed villages is distracting, and for those in the park, reduce the value of the file. Also I think the inset map would be a lot more helpful if it were a bit bigger, because the nested insetting makes it a bit hard to follow. Perhaps it would be best to move all the additional elements to a panel beneath the map, so we can do it better. There is also some sourcing uncertainty over the inset map (although it's probably too general to attract copyright) and the location of some the villages, which is more of a problem for the unlabelled ones as I'm keen to ensure we don't have phantom villages marked. I can pick out Photograph 1 (page 5 but that appears to have a slightly different st of villages and labels. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I am the creator of the original map. I will update on it this week:
Add a colour scale
Modify villages. I've just seen that OpenStreetMap now shows more villages than in april 2009, so I will use it.
About inset map, I don't know. I will make a try beneath the main map, but if I'm not satisfied, I will let them like now. About their copyright, it is the same: I have done them myself.
Thanks Sémhur for providing this info. I actually quite like the insets as they are: the less one knows about geography the more one has to zoom-in to get more info. Hope the colour scale can be added without affecting the elegance of the current layout. --ELEKHHT 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add this to ((FPC urgents)) as soon as the new version's up. It should go just after Bay of Fires; you'll need to manually tweak the ||'s used to provide the second column of images, but getting it on the FPC urgents is probably more urgent, and I'll fix it as soon as I see it if you can't. Adam Cuerden(talk)
Actually, this is a clear case where suspension makes sense. Nomination suspended for editing. Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was sick, but I work on this map again now. OpenStreetMap wasn't finally a good source, I had to find another one. Sémhur 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have trouble with the cache, so if you still see the former version, please click in the picture or in a link below, for example 1000px. Sémhur 20:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 02:18:42 (UTC)
Original – Algol B orbits Algol A. This animation was assembled from 55 images of the CHARA interferometer in the near-infrared H-band, sorted according to orbital phase. Because some phases are poorly covered, B jumps at some points along its path.
Comment I'm not sure all the frames are equal time lengths. It'd be good to check the animation timing, and adjust it to provide a more realistic motion. Adam Cuerden(talk) 06:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The observations of Algol, taken between 2006 and 2010 at the CHARA Array interferometer, were not regular. Telescope time is expensive, and CHARA is a heavily oversubscribed instrument. Observations of Algol were a bit catch-as-catch-can. Algol was frequently not the primary target at all, but was only observed because atmospheric conditions were unsuitable for observation of fainter targets. There were no observations past phase 0.86, resulting in the distinct jump in the animation. See Baron et al., 2012. — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it's a little slow on the left side, then a bit quick going across to the right. Has the time been distributed by bisecting the gaps either side of the image, or by assigning the time to next image to the previous image? Adam Cuerden(talk) 06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I experimented with both methods. Neither attempt seemed very much better than Dr. Baron's original assembly of frames which assigned equal time to each image, so I originally decided to upload his unretouched gif. But thumbnails of his 330 frame file wouldn't animate. So I uploaded my reduced size, 55 frame version where frame duration was proportional to the sum of the bisected gaps on either side of each image. That's how I managed only 21 minutes between my original upload on 08:24, 4 October 2012 and my decreased file size upload on 08:45, 4 October 2012. I had already created the reduced file size version, not thinking that I would actually be using it. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you see is a real effect. On the left side, there are a lot of closely spaced frames which ideally should be timed only a few milliseconds apart. However, even a fast computer is unable to render them quickly enough to avoid a bit of a lag. I have absolutely no desire to throw away any of the frames. That would be taking excessive liberties with Dr. Baron's work, equivalent to excessively Photoshopping a still image, or this famous botched art restoration. — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 1 – Identical to the above, except that the orbital phase is now shown at the lower left of each frame.
Comment Very impressive, but I would only support this if either the frames are changed in length according to the interval between image captures or text indicating the time at which the image was captured is added to each frame. In my opinion it loses its ev without a more accurate indication of time. - ZephyrisTalk 13:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That has already been done. Dr. Baron's original animation repeated the animation sequence six-fold resulting in a large, 2.37 MB file with 330 frames that would not play as a thumbnail. Using GIMP, I extracted the 55 distinct images from the original animation and reassembled them into a 405 KB file, assigning each image a duration such that it would appear at a time corresponding to its orbital phase. See the file history for this movie. — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the phase of each image in this edited version of the animation. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I am happy to Support. I would prefer Edit 1. - ZephyrisTalk 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 06:33:22 (UTC)
Original – Québec City
Reason
Good quality 15,262 x 3,628 pixel image of Québec City, already featured on Commons and two other Wikipedias. This was previously nominated and I think it's worth another attempt for Featured status.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 05:43:17 (UTC)
Original – Human head louse, in a beautifully focus-stacked image.
Reason
A stunningly-well-done microscopic shot, about as good as you could expect. Shows the typical behaviour of the louse gripping the hairs. Saw this on WT:FPC, and had to nominate this, despite it being a lousy picture (ba-dum-TISH).
Reluctant oppose A decent picture but the focus stacking is not done well so there are quite a few parallax errors on the louse and the hair. --Muhammad(talk) 06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yes, there are focus stack errors. But it is still a beautiful image with lots of EV. Linear features like hairs are difficult to deal with in focus stacking. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would me editing this to fix the hairs be acceptable editing? Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two to four ghost images of various hairs don't bother me at all, although they obviously bother some others. Eliminating the ghosts wouldn't bother me either, since your object would be to enhance the truth of the image, rather than trying to add something which is not there. I would definitely hesitate at adding hair extensions to connect hair fragments that apparently do not connect to the louse. That form of editing would go into the category of "imaginative extrapolation" which is not acceptable. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more the ones that are obviously meant to go *under* the louse, but fade out as they approach it due to poor masking of the focus stack. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary. It is a beautiful image one way or another. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see significant errors on the beastie itself. I can ignore the issues with the hair. The EV is very high. Perhaps a slight crop off the LHS would lose the worst of the errors there. Adam, I don't see how the hair can be "fixed" as the main odd effect seems (to me) to be the abrupt loss of focus in front of and behind the animal, making hairs "disappear". Colin°Talk 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could extend the hair up to the animal, so it didn't disappear. I'd have to try it to see how good the effect was, but I'd like to know whether doing so would be considered problematic first. Adam Cuerden(talk) 20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EV is not as high as it could be without any form of size indication. Lycaon (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're about 2.5 to 3 mm long. Since this image is from Flickr, we kind of have to take it as it comes, however. Adam Cuerden(talk) 08:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is epic. — ΛΧΣ21 21:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has good EV, but is somewhat grainy and the level of detail is below most of our current architecture FPs. In terms of composition I am not convinced of the framing either: the tree is obscuring the facade, there is too much light-grey pavement in the foreground and two tourists posing on the left obscure the side staircase. A better angle would have avoided these problems. Also, while of no relevance to the FPC but only to avoid confusions, note that a free CC license is not the same as public domain. --ELEKHHT 21:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 20:47:21 (UTC)
Original – The British Royal Navy battlecruiser HMS Hood (51) seen in 1924.
Reason
Large historic photo of HMS Hood (pennant number 51) from 1924. Hood was the last battlecruiser built by the British Royal Navy. Hood was sunk by the German battleship Bismark during World War II.
Support as nominator --Pine✉ 20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this photo would benefit from restoration - there should be a TIFF version on the SLV's website which can provide the basis of this. Also, note that the photo is the work of Allan C. Green, and not the SLV. Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The SLV website - or, at least, the link given on the file's description page - doesn't seem to want to work at the moment. Is the link correct? Adam Cuerden(talk) 17:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a dud link. This appears to be the correct link. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll have a look and see what I can do. Suspect it'll be a new nom, though, given how soon this closes. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 21:59:54 (UTC)
Original – Trains crossing the Luogelkin viaduct along the Rhone valley on the Lötschberg railway line. This 74 kilometres (46 mi) long line crossing the Swiss Alps is part of a major European rail axis connecting Germany, northern France, Benelux and Italy.
Reason
Compelling image of a central section of the railway line, well depicting the characteristic relief and landscape, and with a high level of detail.
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Cosmology is becoming more and more relevant to people's lives in both scientific and artistic ways; this photo looks brilliant and you won't find an image of this NGC object of higher quality. Pirated windows 7 install disc (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV for the appropriate article. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems to be the best image available of this object. --Pine✉ 18:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only the absolutely unavoidable issues that our current best telescopic equipment for these images produce. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Also seriously cool! ceranthor 03:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 09:17:03 (UTC)
Original – Émile Bertrand's poster for the 1899 première of Jules Massenet's Cendrillon, based on the fairy tale known as Cinderella in English.
Reason
A lovely Art Nouveau poster for a notable opera's première. It's also full of cute little details - the tableau of non-fitting slippers at the bottom, the stork in glasses.
Support. I think. Visually attractive, seems to have good EV and fairly decent quality. It does seem a bit soft at full res, I think this may have been discussed at another recent nom, not sure if that's simply reflective of the original print quality or a scan issue. Also seems a bit faded (e.g., blacks aren't that deep), again that may just reflect the dyes used or the age of the print. Another query I had was that the edges of the print aren't exactly straight, so again I was wondering if that was to do with the scan or the original print. And a final thing I don't understand is why Cendrillon has a photo of Jules Massenet as its lead image rather than this? I would prefer if we swapped them over. --jjron (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. In order: 1. I've applied some sharpening. There's reflective inks, but my impression was not that it was particularly blurry; I suspect people just aren't used to looking at printed works zoomed in that much. 2. There was a colour box; I adjusted the colours against that, and this likely reflects the original colours. 3. The lines not being straight is probably the print; it's fairly common. I suppose it could be the scan, but there's absolutely no evidence for that, so I didn't want to change it. 4. WP:OPERA tends to use infoboxes with standardised images in them to link all operas by a specific composer. I can't very well override a Wikiproject's consensus. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy enough with those responses, I realise some of this is best assumptions based on your experience, but just wanted to confirm you had not just overlooked them. You're probably right about the softness, especially considering printing of that age, the more I thought about it later the less I thought it unexpected, probably just that I really don't look at this type of thing that much. And the final complaint I guess I should take up with WP:OPERA - strikes me as a bit like those Wikiprojects that require/enforce the use of those locator maps at the head of articles about places. ;) --jjron (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't see the original Library of Congress scan because it simply won't load, but it looks like there's some sort of damage to the right of the T in the ribbon thing to the right of the T in J. Massenet, right above where the two ribbons cross. There's also some on the opposite side of the poster, in the curve of the rightmost of the three ribbons on the left side, just to the left of the DE in Musique De. The one on the left could possibly be an error in the printing itself, but the one on the right looks like the color was just scraped off. Sven ManguardWha? 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will fix that tomorrow, or Monday if I'm too busy with the concert. Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon there is a splodge or two on the face too. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing those out. Both have been fixed. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me now. Quite an interesting piece of artwork; the woman looks like she'd be at home in a modern JRPG. Sven ManguardWha? 15:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Colors are very good on this. I agree that it's a little soft. The LOC page indicates that this is a scan of a film photograph of the poster, not a scan of the poster itself (which might be too big to scan). It's possible that the original photograph was a tiny bit out of focus, and it's also possible that the negative was sitting too far from the scanner bed when it was scanned. Either way, it's not enough to be a big deal. Chick Bowen 04:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly normal for LoC scans, honestly. But I still do think people's eyes tend to exaggerate any blurriness, since people aren't used to looking at ink on paper that closely. For comparison... well, I actually have a finished restoration I wasn't going to nominate for FPC, but I may as well get around to uploading it. Moment. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll take the word of the editors above concerning the image quality, which I find beautiful for a piece of ephemera, but I'm not an expert at all in these things. Its educational value is quite high, not only for the article on the opera, but also as a stunning example of art nouveau design. The poster is used as an illustration in at least two books, Massenet: A chronicle of his life and times and Eyewitness Companions: Opera. The poster's publisher/engraver was Devambez, a very notable French firm, started in 1826 and still in operation today (although the Wikipedia article on it is currently rather dreadful). The poster is also interesting for making the Fairy Godmother rather than Cinderella (Cendrillon) the center of attention. The role of the Fairy Godmother in Massenet's opera was created by Georgette Bréjean-Gravière, a favourite singer of his. I can see that poster being useful in an eventual article about her as well. I'd also recommend adding it to Fairy godmother, which currently has only one rather dreary black and white illustration (albeit by Doré). Voceditenore (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like he's been paid to pose for this. Good light, good focus, good DOF, good detail, etc. --jjron (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop needs to occur in the brown strip in between the two tiles. Otherwise it's rather jarring.--Coin945 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support some version; I'm not particularly fussed about which. Does it look a smidgen on the dark side, though? Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sky and grass certainly don't look too dark, and it's quite clear that the ruins themselves have accumulated a fair amount of dirt, so I'd have to guess that it just looks dark because the ruins are very dark. Then again, I don't have the photographer's eye. Sven ManguardWha? 02:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Removing more of the bottom portion of the picture makes it look much better in my opinion. Eire102 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 20:13:22 (UTC)
Original – Mercury is the innermost planet in the Solar System. It is also the smallest, and its orbit is the most eccentric (that is, the least perfectly circular) of the eight planets. It orbits the Sun once in about 88 Earth days, completing three rotations about its axis for every two orbits. The planet is named after the RomangodMercury, the messenger to the gods.ALT 1
Reason
Picture has a huge EV, is verifiable, and looks good.
Oppose as per Geni. The stitch isn't visible in low-res, but can be identified clearly in larger sizes. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a current FP of a gibbous Mercury, though it seems to show a rather different view. (There has been someconfusion as to which version was featured). --Paul_012 (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 21:43:23 (UTC)
Original – An aerial side view of the Parque Central Complex, showcasing the two towers, the residential buildings, the east of Caracas in the background and the surrounding areas at the south of the complex, including the Francisco Fajardo highway and the botanic garden of the Central University of Venezuela.
Reason
One of the finest images of the Parque Central Complex in contrast with its surroundings. I'd like the FP community to measure the potential of this image, wich, in my opinion, has a great quantity of encyclopedic value.
Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ21 21:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose lacks sharpness. --Pine✉ 18:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pine, but also the long deep shadows obscure the ability to see anything at bottom centre of the picture... Needs to be re-taken when the sun is overhead, or at least higher than it was at this time. gazhiley 12:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --— ΛΧΣ21 05:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not looking at camera, in the middle of talking, snapshotty, poor portrait... — raekyt 22:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Useful, but the composition isn't really FP-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't he have an article if we're noming a picture of him? The only article this is in is about one of his games - this seems innapropriate IMO as only images from the game or advertising for the game should be in an article about a game... And when you click his name it redirects to his company, where this would be more appropriatly placed IMO... gazhiley 08:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think I will withdraw this. I have taken a closer look to the image and I'm concerned with some blurry issues on his hands. Also, I think too that one where he looks at the camera will have more EV. Silly me xD — Hahc21talk 15:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 16:09:52 (UTC)
Original – A strong Western Disturbance affecting northern India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Strong Western Disturbances in winter like the one pictured bring moderate to heavy rain in low-lying areas and heavy snow to mountainous areas of the Indian Subcontinent.
Reason
Strong western disturbances like the one pictured are rare, and the image is of great quality.
Is it possible to get this cropped a little more generously, so we can see the southern tip of India? The composition is holding this one back a bit. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are stitching problems at full-res. --99of9 (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-That is not a disturbance, but a extratropical cyclone. Besides, it doesn't have the original, higher resolution, and shape of the official NASA, Earthobservatory images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth100 (talk • contribs)
Earth: While it is an extratropical cyclone it is also a Western disturbance since that is what the India Meteorological Department wish to call it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 19:22:03 (UTC)
Original – The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. It is almost perfectly spherical and consists of hot plasma interwoven with magnetic fields. It has a diameter of about 1,392,684 km, about 109 times that of Earth, and its mass (about 2×1030 kilograms, 330,000 times that of Earth) accounts for about 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System.
Reason
It is an image with great resolution, holds an outstanding EV.
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - on EV only. ceranthor 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SDO takes vast quantities of pictures of the sun, daily, how do you narrow it down to just one? I'd prefer a photograph of it doing something than a rather calm photograph. — raekyt 23:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems active enough to be interesting. If there were more appropriate pics, they should be used in the articles instead. As it is, this looks great and meets criteria IMO. --99of9 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 12:00:41 (UTC)
Original – Beppe Grillo at the banquet of the Five Star Movement in the Piazza Dante in Trento, Italy, for the party's presentation of its 2013 electoral slate.
Reason
Now that an English translation was added, I re-nominate the picture. See also previous nomination.
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per lengthy discussion at previous nom. FWIW it's good quality and I like the emotion shown in the subject, something entirely absent in many of our other 'studio' FPs of politicians and the like. --jjron (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous. Sorry I didn't see the translation conversation until it was almost over. Chick Bowen 15:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I support the 3/4 image if that's the one that sticks in the article. It's not as sharp, there's that weird blurry thing (someone else's camera?) in the lower left, and his eyes are turned away from the camera. Chick Bowen 19:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that issues are dealt with. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Procedurally Close it It's not on the page for him anymore, doesn't seem stable, past few days multiple images have been put in place to replace it by other editors, plus I don't feel this is a good portrait at all.. I don't like photographs of people with their mouth open while talking... — raekyt 23:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the 'procedural close' is for - at best you'd want to argue for a 'suspend'. While it may be a fair comment to say this is not stable in the Beppe Grillo article, it remains one of the lead images in the Italian general election, 2013 article, and as I mentioned at the previous nom could also be used in the Five Star Movement article. FWIW this was replaced with an alternative image taken at the same time by the same photographer by a user with just ten WP edits who gave no edit summary to explain the replacement. This one is clearly better quality and I personally think better composition, and I'm going to revert and open a talkpage discussion, and suggest a consensus needs to be reached there before any further replacements take place, at least in the short-term. --jjron (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I kind of do like better. More dynamic. Adam Cuerden(talk) 14:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, but I still don't like it as a FP due to him having an open mouth while talking, but it's not as bad as this one... — raekyt 14:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Raeky. I also think the handheld microphone and facial expression reduce EV, because they make me want to think he is a singer. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With that outfit would be a rather uncool singer. His facial expression IMO clearly shows that he's trying to communicate. --ELEKHHT 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer oppose as Raeky's issue has been addressed. Count me as a weak support. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know what the previous issues were, but this looks good to me. For me action shots are so important that they get a little leeway in terms of precision in composition. --99of9 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --WPPilot 04:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
What's going on on the right side of this photo? It looks like you copy-and-pasted large rectangular chunks of sky. I'd suggest you withdraw this--people are unlikely to go for it given that issue as well as the main subject being out of focus. According to the metadata, you took this with a shutter speed of 1/640 and the lens wide open at F2.2, which explains why the depth of field is so shallow. You should be able to get your camera to give you a more typical shutter speed and aperture for this kind of subject. Chick Bowen 04:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, Oppose Alt-1 Looks pretty good I guess. Kind of fuzzy, but that galaxy is a long ways off. Dusty777 00:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alt-1 on framing. --99of9 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the original? --LlamaAl (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 14:36:26 (UTC)
Original – From the description page: "This granary, privy and schoolhouse at Matanaka are New Zealand's oldest surviving farm buildings. These buildings are registered Category I historic places with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust."
Reason
High resolution and quality, notable buildings (if rather plain) good composition
Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, visually striking, great composition and lighting. I was worried that the buildings were a little too red, but I think that's a product of the natural lighting rather than anything else. J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition and strong EV. Having been to the South Island of NZ during its so-called 'summer', a bleak appearance seems appropriate! Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bit of an odd Historic Building in my opinion, it's just a couple of barns - but as a picture it's well taken and composition is great. gazhiley 12:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we fix the vignetting from a filter or something on the top right hand corner? JJ Harrison (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - dramatic. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture clearly has a lot of value, and I'm glad you could contribute it. However the flash lighting, angle of the shot, distracting foreground and so on preclude it from being a featured picture. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it has good encyclopedic value, the quality of the picture is not good enough to justify it becoming a featured picture. Eire102 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good image, but its quality does not reach FP status. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Link in description changed to main İznik pottery article, and image added. -Godot13 (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These beautiful tiles are not from Iznik. They were made in Jerusalem by potters that probably originated from Persia (Tabriz). Many of the tiles were produced using the cuerda seca technique. In contrast the potters from Iznik only used the underglaze technique. Also, I believe that potters from Iznik didn't use the yellow colouring. I can supply a bunch of references if you have doubts. Aa77zz (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting on the nominator's response to this before I !vote. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am always willing to learn. I notice Aa77zz has changed one of the articles I relied on for my information Dome of the Rock. While I still think the image has EV as part of the Dome of the Rock and the craftsmanship of the period , I would welcome some references so that I may understand the difference between Iznik versus non-Iznik tiles. And thank you for clarifying the description of the image. May I amend the reason for nomination? Best, Godot13 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the description of the photograph on Commons and added a reference. I have several books and none connect the redecoration of the Dome of the Rock with Iznik. For example: Carswell, John (2006) [1998], Iznik Pottery, London: British Museum Press, ISBN978-0-7141-2441-4, p. 73.: "Although there was an independent band of Persian potters continuing to work in Istanbul, in the cuerda seca tradition, they had been exclusively employed for the decoration of a number of royal monuments. These included .... It was almost certainly this same group of Persian potters who were designated to carry out the decoration of the Dome of the Rock during the mid-sixteenth century. In Jerusalem, the Persian potters advanced from the older techniques of tile mosaic and cuerda seca to develop true underglaze decoration. This major project, which they successfully carried through to its conclusion in AD 1556, may have had a direct influence on the development of the Iznik industry, as the source of tiles nearer home."
Also: Porter, Venetia (1995), Islamic Tiles, London: British Museum Press, ISBN978-0-7141-1456-9, p. 103: "The first of these architectural projects was the refurbishment of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. For this, one of the group of Tabriz tilemakers, 'Abdallah Tabrizi, led a team of craftsmen who, on site, produced tiles in tile mosaic, cuerda seca and underglaze which have dates inscribed on them of AH 952/AD 1545 and 959/1551-2. In Damascus, Süleyman commissioned the Süleymaniye mosque and madrasah in 1554, whose tiles are likely to have been made by the same group of craftsmen once they had completed the Jerusalem commission." Aa77zz (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It certainly looks interesting, but the angle just seems too off for me. Sven ManguardWha? 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very thorough! Image title, caption, and reason for nomination amended to exclude specific reference to Iznik. Godot13 (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, and what looks like a little artefacting in the background, though that may just be bokeh, but in any case, I'll accept that in a picture of an eagle in flight, since the motion is presumably fairly fast. Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be better if the bird's head was more in focus but I think this is good enough for now. We can always D&R if we get something better. --Pine✉ 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Virtually flawless from what I can see... gazhiley 11:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've essentially no knowledge on the topic, just curious. Would a projection that shows the horizontal lines of the central part of building as straight lines be more preferable for architecture photographs like this in general? Is it likely possible for this picture, or would the distortion in the perpendicular wings become too great? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that this may reduce EV. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great shot. ceranthor 21:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic, well done. No people to spoil it. Nice and sharp, good stitching as far as I can see. --99of9 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 20:02:12 (UTC)
Original – Slender Mongoose (Galerella sanguinea) in Prague Zoo, Czech Republic
Reason
Sharp and encyclopedic shot. It loses a little EV because it lacks the tail and the rear is a little blurry, but I think this is otherwise a great shot. It's also an FP on Commons.
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Image page needs English translation. The image caption here should suffice and is actually more informative than the original description anyway. Could you please check image pages are in English before nominating for enwiki? --jjron (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'll check it next time. Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having been there I can say for a certainty that the rock is not tilted that way... look at the horizon. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Strong composition is let down by what appears to be both excessive image noise and noise reduction. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. Also, Saffron Blaze, I'm not quite sure I understand you. The horizon in this photo is straight, just as in yours. I don't see any differences in the perspective of the rock other than where the photographer was standing. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As demonstrated by Saffron Blaze's link, this isn't the best available composition. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Going to have to oppose on same reason as Nick-D... But I'm slightly disappointed that Saffron isn't offering up the image he linked too with a license that we could use... — raekyt 23:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but it is already under license through Getty. I'll see what I can do though. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need your beautiful works. :) JKadavoorJee 05:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jee, you are too kind. Unfortunately any I have from this angle would be considered a "similar" to those under contract. As such I am obligated not to offer them for license to anyone else, including Wikis. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their contract is that strict? Is there an online viewable version of the contract? — raekyt 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect - expression and crop could be a bit better - but still at FP standards in my opinion. Adam Cuerden(talk) 19:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Adam Cuerdem. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Top right is a little distracting, but this has the EV and the composition to meet my standards. ceranthor 21:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good to have free images of singers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 16:06:59 (UTC)
Original – Irish WWI recruitment poster, c. 1915. By Hely's Limited, Litho, Dublin.
Reason
While I think I was somewhat wrong in the previous nomination when I over-emphasised this poster's rarity - I've since discovered a few more possibilities - this is one of the more interesting WWI Irish recruitment posters, and - after further research - I have found enough evidence the artist is unknowable to justify uploading it to Commons, which gets over one of the major objections last nomination. I do think this is a nice insight into the rather blunt emotional tugs used in recruitment posters of the time, and, while not the best art, isn't terrible, and the historical interest and EV make up for any failings in that regard.
The previous nomination had 4.5 supports, and no opposes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 19:55:17 (UTC)
Original – Dr Mumtaz Ahmed Khan, founder chairman of the Al-Ameen Educational Society.
Reason
The only free decent picture of him. The background shows part of the logo of the society but it is covered under de minimis. Overall, good lghting, quality and EV
Support Very nicely done. The lighting is very nice. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm personally not a fan of the crop, so I'm not voting on it. I just wanted to second that in my opinion it's covered by de minimis. Sven ManguardWha? 02:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I suspect that only the picture of the person with the torch is copyrightable - the rest is text and simple shapes - and that part of the logo is completely obscured. Adam Cuerden(talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A combination of the factors Adam identifies and the nature of what's left in terms of photographic quality means that I do not see any copyright issues here. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 13:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice composition, quality is fine, and does a decent job of capturing how ungodly large Stanford's campus is. Sven ManguardWha? 02:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is high quality, the background colours fit with the roller coaster, angle that the photo was taken with adds value, and there is a "train" in the picture rather then just the track.
Support as nominator --Dom497 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm neither a fan of the angle, nor the crop, and I think that the blue on blue is staining. Sorry. Sven ManguardWha? 02:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I actually think this is pretty close. The stray hand in the foreground, tilt (look at the horizon) and image noise push it to an oppose for me though. I think those things could be either fixed or improved with an edit though. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do remember that, in hilly countries, horizons aren't necessarily straight or horizontal. Crossbars probably should be, though. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever you do, don't look at the horizon. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JJ Harrison, the tilt in particular is not great... As an aside to Sven Manguard, I agree that the colour clash isn't great, but considering that the is the colour they have chosen to paint it, I'm not sure that you can count that as a reason for the Oppose - not in my opinion anyway. Obviously you have also opposed for the angle, but it's your call if that alone is still enough to oppose. gazhiley 10:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As weird as this sounds, maybe it would have been better to wait for a greyer day to take the photo. Sven ManguardWha? 01:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO not very strong EV in Calligraphy. Any article for the vessel type? --Muhammad(talk) 14:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be a clear support if it had a home in an appropriate article, but it isn't that useful as it is currently placed. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't really understand the copyright claims on this image. It states to be unknown creator, but public domain on the basis of the author being dead 70+ years. Well clearly to me at least this image is not 70+ years old. Perhaps it's being used due to the age of the object, but doesn't that template refer to the image itself, not the age of the object in the image? I'm unable to read any information on the website it was lifted from as it's all in Danish(?) to see what they say about image reuse. But if not a copyvio, at best isn't the wrong copyright template being used? --jjron (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 02:36:12 (UTC)
Original – Black-naped Monarch (Hypothymis azurea), Kaeng Krachan, Petchaburi, Thailand
Reason
A very nice images considering the dim lighting conditions. I saw this species in 2010 too, but was disappointed with a blurry mess of a photograph. :)
High quality photograph, good resolution, and very high EV. One of the best, if not the best, images of tornado damage on Wikipedia. Meets criteria 4 and 6 since it was created by FEMA.
Support as nominator --Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 09:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my comment on Commons wrt better crop. Also not been in article for a week. Not always wise to nominate on Commons and Wikipedia at same time -- best to pick one and address any issues before considering the other. -- Colin°Talk 12:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people wouldn't treat the seven-day suggestion as a requirement, or, if they did, wouldn't only apply it to new FPC users, when I have constantly got away with not waiting a week whenever I decided the usage was obvious enough I didn't need to, or I thought that the article was so rarely edited that a week wouldn't matter. Adam Cuerden(talk) 14:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I treat it as a requirement? I have in the past commented that this suggestion is not a requirement. But here it is good advice and I feel the nominator has been hasty. Look at the Tornado intensity and damage article. The previous lead image was well annotated wrt "intensity and damage" and showed damage to nature rather than a house. The article is well illustrated with damaged houses, and those other pictures are chosen to show off each scale of damage. So although this image is reasonable quality, one might make a good argument that the original lead was better and the tornado experts might feel that the other images illustrate aspects of building-damage better than this one. Colin°Talk 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize about the week thing...I didn't notice anywhere where that was stated, although I very well could have overlooked it given the time of day I was nominating this. As a meteorologist, I would say that this image does a much better job of conveying tornado damage...while damage to nature is more common, oftentimes the better display of damage is when buildings are involved. It is very difficult to tell the difference between EF3 and EF5 level damage to foliage, whereas there is a substantial difference to building damage. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 21:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Colin, I'd like to see if this sticks in the article. Frankly, I think the tree one is a more effective photograph. Chick Bowen 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High resolution image, good lighting/quality, a free license, primarily useful to articles on the content, but could also be useful to articles on the artist or on the painting itself.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 18:42:31 (UTC)
Original – Workers load uranium slugs into the X-10 Graphite Reactor's concrete face. Built as part of the Manhattan Project, X-10 was the first-ever production reactor, and acted as a proof of concept for the reactors that would produce materials for the first nuclear bombs.
Reason
The image shows 2 workers in 1943 loading the second ever nuclear reactor. The image is a little cluttered around the edges, but it is historically significant. I'm not a photography guru by any means, nor am I a regular at FPC so I'm not the best person to judge the technical quality of the image, but my non-expert opinion is that it's excellent.
Support as nominator --James086Talk 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is a very iconic and valuable photograph of the X-10 reactor, and although there are minor flaws that might be cloned out, even in it's current state it's VERY feature-able. — raekyt 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Considerable EV. ceranthor 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is. But, if I were to clone out four white spots that seem definitely to be on the negative--the three on the tall dark metal thing that goes up the left hand wall, and the one on the right next to hole 3455--would anyone object to my uploading that over the top? There are other spots, of course, but those are the most prominent. Chick Bowen 22:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High EV. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --ceranthor 21:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some rather obvious artefacts in the tail, presumably from the making the background black. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not really a fan of the whole "fake black background with fake light and fake shadow" set-up, and I'm not even convinced it's been done that well- look at the edges of the antennae-like protrusions... J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The fake shadow is really not great with heavy banding and strange partial blur on the edges. Without it, though, I could see a FP. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Dom497 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a neat angle, and I'm thrilled to have this sort of aerial shot, but the technial quality of the image just isn't there. There's some sort of overly-aggressive noise reduction or smoothing going on that has smeared out fine detail and smeared out colors in the image. The lower right corner of the park appears to have been cut off by the framing, as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That looks terrible at full resolution, like someone used an erode filter over the whole thing. Adam Cuerden(talk) 07:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above... Shame... gazhiley 08:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is not an actual image, just an artist's concept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crisco is right, but I don't think an actual image of a planetary system other than our own is possible. Planets outside our solar system are essentially found by inference from observations, not looking at them through a telescope directly. Even an image of our own solar system won't be possible for many years. We would have to get the equipment very far away, which takes a long, long time. That said, I have issues with the scale of this image. I think the planets are too big relative to the star. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Promoted --LlamaAl (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. LlamaAl (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 01:51:18 (UTC)
Original – A British recruitment poster, crated by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee in their efforts to recruit soldiers for World War I, featuring the imagery of Saint George and the Dragon.
Reason
A fine Art Nouveau recruitment poster; one of the more attractive and interesting from WWI.
Comment: I tweaked the licencing (if you don't have any issues, I suggest you change the other versions similarly, or I can, if you would like). Question: did the original poster use such a poor contrast ratio (the dull green on black) or have we lost something along the way of reproducing it? Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 23:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a metallic green, and metallic colours are unreproducable on computer monitors, unfortunately. Of course, the main issue is that the poster creator never designed this to be seen as a tiny thumbnail on an aggressively white background. It looks fine at a larger size. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --europrobe (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment came across this image by chance, and noticed that while the nomination page has been created in 2010 it was never actually transcluded onto the FPC page. It is a clear diagram so I thought it deserves some feedback. --ELEKHHT 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 03:49:57 (UTC)
Original – A Crab-eating macaque breastfeeding her baby. Pictured in the Lalbagh Botanical Gardens
Reason
Shows the mother nursing her kid. As an additional point, the banana shows that the mother need to eat to be able to nourish her baby. Good quality, EV. Image has been stable in the article for over 9 months.So I thought this was the perfect time for a nomination :p
Weak oppose - Just a bit out of scope. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind me asking, what is the scope? --Muhammad(talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fruits look like an offering by visitors of the garden. If so, not a good idea. JKadavoorJee 07:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know it's a cardinal sin, but I would suggest cropping the tail. It's just too long and ruins the composition of the photo. Kaldari (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would strongly object to this, although I have no opinion on the picture yet... gazhiley 15:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The encyclopedic value of this picture is showing the animal nursing. The article already has a photo showing the appearance of the entire animal, including the tail. Kaldari (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 03:40:20 (UTC)
Original – A juvenile Long-tailed fiscal, Lanius cabanisi in the Mikumi National Park
Reason
Good quality, EV, res. Only picture of a juvenile. There is considerable difference between adults and juveniles so IMO there is place for both. Image has been stable in the article for over a year.
Support The top of the bird's head an its back may be very slightly out of focus (though this could be the light), but overall this is an excellent photo. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Per Nick-D. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What's in focus is great. ceranthor 17:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone else getting the red x error image when opening this picture? The image page loads fine, but I cannot get the full resolution to open - goes straight to the error screen... Hence unable to vote yet... gazhiley 15:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any problem. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. It now seems to work fine... Thanks for responding though LlamaAl. However I will vote Oppose as my initial concerns (which I tried to verify by looking closer but failed) are now confirmed - I have same opinion of Razum2010 sorry. gazhiley 14:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems like too much valuable imagery has been cropped out of this scene. It also looks like we're missing the bottom part of the cathedral.Razum2010 (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Razum2010, you have to crop somewhere but cutting out the bottom of the cathedral doesn't work. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the buildings at the bottum appear to be unrelated structures, however it still is an odd crop that takes away from the quality.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 23:02:40 (UTC)
Original – The last British Royal Navy battlecruiser, HMS Hood (pennant number 51), in a photograph from 1924.
Reason
In the previous nomination (albeit of a different file), it was pointed out the file needed restored. Unfortunately, there was a bad link to the source that we only sorted out a few days before it closed, and this restoration was far too difficult to complete in that time, with my other commitments. So, with apologies to Pine, the original nominator, I have finished work, and submit a new nomination.
If anyone spots any additional issues, just let me know, and I should be able to fix it. I would appreciate if people kept voting in the meantime, conditionally if need be, but that's largely due to me noticing that a lot of noms that have issues pointed out early on tend to fail.
Comment Is it possible to fix the white splotches on the left and right margins of the image? Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's vignetting, and it's very hard to do so it looks natural. I've had a go, but wasn't happy enough with it, so didn't upload that version. I could have another go, I guess, and see if I can get something decent. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The big trouble is the smoke going towards the left of the image. It's very hard to make out the significance of the small changes in tone that make up details like that when zoomed in enough to do editing, which makes a bit of a nightmare when you're trying to do repairs nearby that basically involve smoothing out all detail. I'll keep poking, but I've currently considered, then rejected three separate attempts to fix the vignetting without removing image details. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation Adam. With that in mind, I'm pleased to support the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for your work here, Adam. --Pine✉ 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. Quality image & Valued image. Full EV. Alborzagros (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tradition seems to be that if it's featured on Commons it doesn't have a chance here but what the heck, it's a good picture and has high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image, good subject, and a nice angle on the building that does a good job if illustrating it. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image. No issues. Feature quality.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --GeezerB (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Absolutely brilliant photograph, but I'd like to see the "Lancy" in the bottom left cloned out. It draws the eye and looks unpleasantly like a watermark. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it adds an encyclopedic value by telling the viewer that Iommi uses Laney amplifiers. GeezerB (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since you really can't see the amp, and since the amp isn't the focus, it's distracting. I think J Milburn is right on this one. Sven ManguardWha? 23:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable about the idea of removing something that's actually in the photograph without really, really good reasons, which I don't think we have. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't this below the new threshhold? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so, so Oppose — raekyt 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose - If only this were nominated a year and a half ago... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's blurry even at this size, so giving it more pixels likely wouldn't of changed much. — raekyt 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per issues above, but in addition I don't like that the guitar is cut off at the top (after all, it is the tool of his trade), as it's a little too dark for me - cannot tell where the body of the guitar ends and his shirt begins... The background is distracting too, as evidence by the fact that half the discussion so far is the few letters in the bottom left corner... gazhiley 14:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The guitar being cut off is unfortunate but overall it's a pretty good image and he's the subject more than the guitar, the guitar is just an enhancement to the image since it shows the tool of his trade. For the people giving the new size guidelines as a reason, if you want to seem credible give a real reason to oppose rather than cowering behind some recent change in the whims of the few people who control when the size guideline is upped every few years. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the size guideline (note that they're guidelines, not hard and fast rules) is, and always has been, so that we have flexibility in using the image as necessary on Wikipedia and that people who may wish to reuse our content, in line with the applicable license, may do so with maximum flexibility. If someone can honestly come up with a good example of how an image being a few hundred pixel on a side really detracts from its usability then I'll reconsider my position. Until then stop being pedantic and use some common sense when applying the guidelines. Cat-fivetc ---- 08:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 13:16:45 (UTC)
High Definition and True color image of a Unusual Anitcylone, the opposite of a Cyclone over the Great Australian Bight, Southern Australia, spotting a cloud hole surrounded by marine stratocumulus clouds.
Reason
High Pressure Areas in nature rarely make a 'hole' in the clouds, like the one pictured, are rare, and the image is of great quality, in true, natural color equivalent to a human eye looking down from space, showing a powerful Anticyclone, the opposite of a Low pressure Area! (Source and proof: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7820)
Oppose. The description reads - "Earth100 checked the isobaric chart of southern Australia, which showed that there was really, a strong High Pressure area right where the area of clear clouds was located.". What is this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i saw this counterclockwise spinning hole in the ocean of clouds in satellite imagery, but i wasn't sure if it was a High Pressure area so i checked AU's meteorological center to check the Isobaric chart, and Vola, the chart at that time shows a High Pressure Area at the area which showed up a spot in satellite imagery.
That is still in the description though. The description is not what a FP should be. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that this should visibly be above Australia? Please state what you mean in a clear and unambiguous manner. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
07:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I am saying that this was visible above Southern Australia, on June 5, 2012, as taken by the Aqua satellite, which took the image in true color.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉) 12:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was directed at Hink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the comment is inappropriate and unsourced. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article proper? Earth100 seems to have offered a link for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the description for the image. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can a third party explain the above, please (assuming it is clearer to anyone else than it is to me)? Is the question whether there is original research here? Chick Bowen 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's sourced man, but if you don't like that description, feel free to remove it adminis!--✯Earth100✯(talk✉) 22:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who wants it to be a featured picture. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest suspension. I still have no idea what these two are going on about, but whatever it is it seems like it needs to be resolved before this can be considered for FP. Chick Bowen 03:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the image in the top-right of the article, you'll see this phrase - "Earth100 checked the isobaric chart of southern Australia, which showed that there was really, a strong High Pressure area right where the area of clear clouds was located." - which I think is utterly unfit for a featured picture. And also, there's a typo in the image caption up top! --♫
Gentlemen, i really don't understand what the heck are you complaining about, everything is sourced, and for my statement, if you think it is inappropriate, than just get some admin to remove it!--✯Earth100✯(talk✉) 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be an admin. You're the one nominating the picture. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If I can try to summarise the above, the image and description on the image page have been purloined from here (and FWIW Earth100 the "Source" stated on the image page seems to be wrong, perhaps that was your original source for the image (but not description) that was later overwritten? The images are reproducible, but not sure whether you're meant to just copy and paste the text?). Anyway, I think Hurricanehink's problem is that Earth100 has also added some further information to the original copied text, including a statement that he checked the image against isobaric charts from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to confirm the stated phenomenon. This would appear to be original research by Earth100, especially as best I can tell it includes some interpolation from the isobaric charts on Earth100's part which I can't find to be fully supported by any of the refs, but the other thing is these added statements seem to me largely unnecessary. So why not just remove the additional and possibly OR statements? Well now the image page has been protected on Commons to view source only, apparently due to edit warring. Although this warring doesn't show in the page history, nonetheless the upshot is we now can't change the image page text to fix the issues identified. Any suggestions? --jjron (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to remove what you guys think it's OR, or whatever, just get a commons admin to remove that sentence, thank you.--✯Earth100✯(talk✉) 13:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked anyone yet? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That User, did it, how it is now?--✯Earth100✯(talk✉) 05:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description should be based off of the article. That description is still talking about lining up with the high-pressure area based on surface observations. Also, the entire last paragraph is just a cut and paste of the NASA page; while not copyrighted, it should be paraphrased or indicated as a direct quote. There is also nothing about counterclockwise spinning in the Earth Observatory article. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is still a problem for me, as well (the cut and paste). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without prejudice. This is turning into a farce. The image is potentially featurable, but you need to get the image page description sorted out properly, then renominate. I would normally say to Suspend, but given the image page has been locked down for 12 months that's too long for a suspension, and since this nom has turned into a silly bunfight, I reckon we finish it off and start fresh without bias when it's been sorted out properly. In the meantime please get some practice in correct use of sources and understanding Wiki policies. --jjron (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 29 deleted edits in the history of this image which are uploads of new versions and reverts to earlier versions by several users. This is what led to the year protection, after a shorter protection a little earlier. I've advised Earth100 that changes to the image should be proposed/discussed on its talkpage and questions directed to the protecting admin. INeverCry 07:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, Earth100 has been blocked from the English Wikipedia for 2 months, although not the commons. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really needs to be suspended until it is figured out. Like an issue of copyright questions there's nothing gained by keeping the clock going on this and nothing lost by suspending it until it can be cleared up. Failing that this should be ended now, the argument taken to a talk page somewhere, and the image renominated once this is settled. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I don't think it should replace this photo as lead image, because the other one shows important parts of the bird we can't see here. Tomer T (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is that soft focus on the left talon? It looks a little bit fuzzy but it could just be the light. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 14:28:55 (UTC)
Original – NGC 4603 is a spiral galaxy located in the constellationCentaurus. It has been found to contain over 36 Cepheid variable stars, being the most distant galaxy the Hubble Space Telescope has found to contain Cepheid variable stars.
Reason
Unique image, best picture available for this object.
Messier 82 ([3]) is about 12 Mly away and NGC 1300 is about 61 Mly away, while NGC 4603 is about 142 Mly ([4], image source says it's 108 Mly) away. You think distance plays into how big of an image we can reasonably expect? — raekyt 20:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It also looks like it was cropped from a larger image. ceranthor 17:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is off-center, and clearly much of the object is cropped. Razum2010 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Off center and looks like a bad crop, per above. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Size can easily be explained if you actually read about the object, "Because NGC 4603 is much farther away than the other galaxies studied with Hubble by the Key Project team, 108 million light-years, its stars appear very faint from the Earth" and "spiral galaxy NGC 4603, the most distant galaxy in which a special class of pulsating stars called Cepheid variables have been found" Not all astronomical images can be huge, and due to distance some leeway can be given. Obviously not a full image of the galley though. — raekyt 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Promoted --LlamaAl (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. LlamaAl (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the previous angle this was uploaded over, it seems like the pedestal is flat and parallel to the floor, so it might be worthwhile to rotate this a little. Chick Bowen 01:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was the wall was curved, but I'll double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that it's the wall. Rotating this would make the statue not straight along the vertical axis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two things: First, I'm not sure what the problem is, but the area around where his feet hit the pedistal looks like it has some problems. Second, there's some text off to the left of the statue. If that's not related to the exhibit being shown, would it be appropriate to try and edit it out? I'm tempted to say that the vents on the back wall should be edited out too, but that seems a bit much. Sven ManguardWha? 05:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They can be blurred, easily. I'll check it out when I get on a more manageable connection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the manipulation of the text which apears to be a part of the museum itself and should not have been removed in my opinion. The ventilation system on the walls is still distracting but now I can tell that they lettering was photoshoped and a ghost image appears. I should also note the issue with the feet is the way the statue was created. The statue's proportions get larger towards the top of the statue. This is very common with ancient colossus statuary. It's not an issue that can be addressed with photoshop. It requires the image be rephotographed, looking up from a low position to see the statue as designed. I don't think this is a feature quality image and don't see that anything can be done to improve it to be such.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question I'm not sure if it is an issue, but I'm sure I've read other objections based on this - The main article Chornaya Rechka is only one sentence long. Is that an issue with regards to an FP? gazhiley 13:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it is also the main photograph for Saint Petersburg Metro. And there were images in the past that passed although their main article was a stub. Tomer T (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A picture is a worth a thousand words. Going by that, if the article is small, surely the picture is more valuable? --Muhammad(talk) 14:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A little cliche'd Muhammad, but I take your point... I'll weak support for now, as I'm personally not convinced that the EV is very high, considering the subject doesn't appear notable enough to have more than a sentence or two about it... gazhiley 14:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think EV is sufficient based on the use in Saint Petersburg Metro. It gives a good sense, apparently representative, of the style of the whole system, and how different it is architecturally from the Moscow system. Still making up my mind about the photo itself. I feel a little like it can't quite make up its mind between being street photography (for which one would want the young woman whose face is most prominent to be a bit more sharply in focus) and architectural photography. Weak support for now. Chick Bowen 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EV is the easy criteria to meet: Does this illustrate the subject? Whether the subject is notable is handled by a different department - AfD. Rmhermen (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I right in thinking that this photograph is slightly tilted? Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About half a degree. Chick Bowen 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support very questionable EV. It's a nice enough image but encyclopedic value can't really be judged when there's nothing in the encyclopedia to value it with/against. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's making a similar point to me - ie yes this is fine for a picture of the metro station, but if the station article itself is no more than a single line of text, then this picture doesn't say a lot EV wise because there isn't much to say... If that makes sense?! gazhiley 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to judge article quality or length, if the article meets WP:N, then that's all the consideration we should give it. Stubs are equally valid to have a FP the same as a FP article is. — raekyt 16:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:46:56 (UTC)
Original – A self-portrait of the rover Curiousity, taken at Gale Crater on Mars in 2012Alt - unedited version.Alt 2 - color corrected, no perspective correction.
Reason
A self-portrait from a robot... on Mars. Need I say more?
Comment -- Should the description page mention any white balance correction? --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if a minimally compressed (i.e., 100% quality), otherwise untouched jpeg of the original tiff is uploaded as a reference (with the possibility that I'll prefer it once I see it). I believe the tiff itself is too big for Commons. Chick Bowen 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to a connection that powerful. What we have on commons is this, which is highly compressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do it. Hang on a bit. Chick Bowen 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added as an alt. Support either, preference for alt. The edited version looks to me like the perspective correction is eyeballed, not based on a verifiable frame of reference. Thus, I'd rather have the unedited version. WB of the alt is typical of NASA Mars photos, probably doesn't need correcting except for cosmetic purposes. Chick Bowen 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 2 also. Chick Bowen 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive. Not sure if the colours will be accepted in the main article though (although edited in the original, they do look a little more vibrant) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great photo! You almost can't tell that it was taken in a film studio... 138.38.3.39 (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I was very much undecided here. On one hand perhaps the (thin) atmosphere is dusty, in which case the alt would be better, but on the other hand the original does allow the details of the rover itself to be seen more clearly. However, it appears in the article to illustrate the rover, not Mars. Thus I am happy with the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ Harrison (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version as editor of the original. WB correction has been done based on the grey markers on the robot, contrast increase because we simply aren't used to seeing photos with such linear tonemapping. I think which version is better really depends on the specific usage case. --Julian H. (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming by. I don't suppose you have a version that has the WB correction but not the PC? Chick Bowen 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That could be easily done, I can upload such a version tomorrow. Should I overwrite the current one with that? If the PC doesn't help, that would be the easiest way. --Julian H. (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go separate, as the Commons policy prohibits overwriting Featured Pictures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I find the one featured at Commons better, but I prefer this new version over the dustier one (for the sake of being able to see the rover) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Julian. I added it as an additional alt. Chick Bowen 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Dusty or not the edit looks like all the color was washed out. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Only Going with the original on this one. I think it looks better then the others. I might add, that dust storms and blowing dust are rather frequent on Mars to my knowledge, so the dusty look is rather unavoidable, and merely contributes to the EV. Dusty777 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm curious: how was this photograph taken without part of the rover extending out of the frame to hold the camera that took the photograph? Did Curiosity detach one of its cameras and then pose? Spikebrennan (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The robotic arm that contains the camera has been edited out by stitching together all the parts of the image that don't contain it. You can actually see the gap in the image where the arm is attached, an incomplete disk with a bit of a "ghost" to it, as you'd normally see where a stitched image doesn't quite come together. This picture shows where it's attached. Chick Bowen 18:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:PIA16239 High-Resolution Self-Portrait by Curiosity Rover Arm Camera.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --VoBEDD 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well it looks like the previous FP for him (File:Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg) is virtually unused now, probably should be a D&R tbh. Or at least the other one is probably qualifying for a delist due to not being used except very superficially in Economic policy of Barack Obama and Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011. Official portraits like this are quite hard to successfully nominate, and all the previous failed nominations and discussions on pictures of him will probably testify to that. — raekyt 18:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have long hoped that the 2006 FP would be replaced by a superior, similarly candid Wikipedian's photo of him. That one hasn't come along shows how much less accessible he is than in the pre-presidency years. In turn, that demonstrates the ways in which that old FP is actually still (despite its admitted shortcomings) pretty valuable. Not every prominent photo of the president in the encyclopedia should be a White House release. Chick Bowen 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like Obama but this image gives off a odd vibe to me with the crossed arms and the big smile. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason to oppose that I can tell or see. Far superior to the older portrait but as a stand alone image, regardless of where it comes from or who took it, it is a superb image.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image, much better than the current FP of him. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Weak, only because of the somewhat distracting background. I suppose it does show him in his office, so it helps EV, but it's still a tad distracting. SpencerT♦C 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The big grin is unlike how I've seen him in any other photo or video, but this an improvement over the old FP. --Pine✉ 22:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit small, sadly; the criteria now call for minimum of 1500px in width and height. Chick Bowen 03:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To small, and I don't think a muddy river on an overcast day is the best representation of an entire district, so EV grounds as well. — raekyt 23:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all gazhiley 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Promoted --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 00:39:55 (UTC)
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know that there's nothing you can do about it, but the clouds are really, really distracting to me. Sorry, Sven ManguardWha? 05:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose as I love planes, but too much of the plane is either slightly out of focus or in dark shadow to make the EV high enough to forgive the distracting background... gazhiley 11:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to nominate this some time ago, but Sven's rationale was what convinced me not to. — ΛΧΣ21 19:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gazhiley, can't support it when it's like half the image has been rubbed out with a black magic marker. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Half the image rubbed with a marker? Where do you see that? Dusty777 01:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's being literal... If you glance at it it looks like it was on a blue background, but half of it rubbed out... Well, that's the point he was making anyway - Don't take what he said too literaly! gazhiley 13:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 00:49:46 (UTC)
Original – A natural block of (water) ice. Ice is water frozen into the solid state. It can appear transparent or opaque bluish-white color, depending on the presence of impurities or air inclusions. The addition of other materials such as soil may further alter the appearance.
Reply: But this is about Ice. It is an Ice block near the lagoon. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, perhaps you can see how, based on the caption, I might have been confused about that. Chick Bowen 01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this is a nice picture, the darkness caused by the strong low sun makes it very difficult to see much of this picture - it look a bit of careful study to confirm that it was definately sitting in water... The issue over the caption affects my vote as well - the caption definately seems to indicate this is about the bay, whereas the picture is actually a lump of ice that could be anywhere in the world... gazhiley 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Caption changed; image already FP on Commons. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your update on my talk page. I have amended my oppose accordingly, however still oppose due to darkness issues... gazhiley 15:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the arctic, even in summer, the sun is fairly low down, though. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye catching, and shows the subject matter front-and-centre. EΤΓΞΦ 15:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyNotEtreo (talk • contribs)
Support, although a bit better focus would have been nice. Adam Cuerden(talk) 04:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, a very nice image, but it is only an "eye catching" image and without EV for me, additional per Chick Bowen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the way the image was created makes it unencyclopedic in nature. Artistc, yes but the issue for me is simply a lack of a clearly defined subject taken in a manner to allow the viewer to understand the subject better. I can't tell what the scale of the ice actually is or if it is in a natural setting or was placed there was by the photographer from their fridge (OK so that stretching a bit, but you get the gest of what I am saying) This could well be a piece of store bought ice. Nothing about this really seems natural to me by the way it was photographed.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The water is incredibly dark but it's a good image and the main focus is fine. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is an adequate illustration of the subject with some interesting aesthetics. --Pine✉ 22:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 05:37:19 (UTC)
Original – Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), Pak Thale, Petchaburi, Thailand
Reason
The beak is an important feature to examine for identification of this species. It is shown well, as is the rest of the plumage. The image quality is otherwise excellent. The photo was taken on salt pans in baking heat. I essentially decided to lie in wait in a spot and the birds came to me after a number of hours.
Support very nice. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I find the strong blur on the leg to be distracting, but otherwise this is very good. --Pine✉ 22:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, weak only because JJ's work has raised the bar so high it makes us more aware of the slight compositional awkwardness of this one. It would be a shame if this hit the deadline with 4.5 supports, though, so I'm happy to provide the other .5. Chick Bowen 23:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Calidris ferruginea, winter adult, Pak Thale.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 05:40:16 (UTC)
Original – Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis), Laem Pak Bia, Petchaburi, Thailand
Reason
Nice light just before sunset. This isn't that closely related to the other 'sandpipers' that I've posted here recently. It is more closely related to the redshanks, greenshanks and tattlers.
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A really interesting picture, but the article was created by a now-banned user who seems to have had a poor grasp of English and/or botany. I've given the article a quick copyedit, but, frankly, it may be best to just start over... J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare to have a plant image with a bit of wow like this. The fill size image is very soft, but I guess the camera's sensor is just far out-resolving the lens placed on it, and there is more than acceptable detail. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image. This image can and should stand alone regardless of the uploader. If the description page, caption, or article placement needs work then there's no reason that it can't be a community effort and/or taken on by someone else. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --WPPilot 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Sorry, but seems unsharp. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLink to previous nom for those interested... gazhiley 09:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it just my cookies or does the thumb show the exact same picture as the prev nom? It shows the new one once I click on it but in the thumb it's the same pic... gazhiley 09:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my last vote - there is still no article about this resort, and thus lacking in EV... Plus I agree with King of♥♦♣ ♠ about the sharpness... Better composed pic tho IMO if that's any consolation... gazhiley 09:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that it seems a bit unsharp, particularly towards the edges. To me it looks like either the lens was quite poor, or it was shot through thick glass, reducing image quality as a result. Unless there was extreme vibration and the camera was resting on the frame, I wouldn't have thought shutter speed was the issue. Can the photographer confirm if it was shot through glass? Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment No it was shot from mid air at 100 MPH OUTSIDE of the window. I open the window so I am NOT shooting through thick glass or any glass. This lens is a F2.8 NIKKOR (hardly cheap). I hold the camera OFF of anything attached to the plane so it does not vibrate. I am about a mile away from the subject when the photo was taken. --WPPilot 12:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that the main concern is the lack of an article on the topic to test its encyclopedic value. — ΛΧΣ21 16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It actually looks like JPEG artifacting to me... JJ Harrison (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the original NEF, it is more detailed up close as Wiki does not support NEF would you care to suggest another format to remove the artifacting.WPPilot (talk)--WPPilot 05:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's JPEG artifacting - the image is a bit soft and softness is not usually associated with artifacting. Maybe it was just the speed that you were travelling when taking the photo that resulted in a bit of blur. It doesn't seem to be motion blur though as there's no particular direction to it. Maybe it's just that there isn't enough sharpening applied. I'm really not sure what the cause of it is, I'm only guessing. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see artifacting either. Personally I think it's simply a factor of the distance, likely combined with a small amount of blur caused by it being slightly out of focus. We're not really used to looking at detail at that scale taken from a mile away, and the smoothness where we'd expect to see some detail and texture really just looks like a consequence of that to me. This would be amplified if there was a little bit of smog or something around. BTW, the date in the image page summary is incorrect. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right - looking at the image closely, there is actually detail there, but it's just... soft and a bit indistinct looking, and it could be due to a slight misfocus. I suppose we are asking for a lot given the conditions required for shooting it though, but that doesn't mean FP. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 15:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that containing this scene within such a narrow-angle shot is ideal. I feel like we're missing a lot to the left and the right of the current view. A wider shot might be more worthy of FP status. Razum2010 (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commenting so it's not piling on but this has almost zero EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 14:05:21 (UTC)
Original – Dasht-e Kavir, also known as Kavir-e Namak or the Great Salt Desert is a large desert lying in the middle of the Iranian plateau. It is about 800 kilometers (497 mi) long and 320 kilometers (198 mi) wide with a total surface area of about 77,600 square kilometers (~30,000 mi²), making it the Earth's 23rd largest desert.
Reason
Good quality, resolution. It is already a FP on Commons.
Support as nominator --LlamaAl (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support The fact that this is a 'false-color composite image made using infrared, green, and red wavelengths' needs to feature much more prominently in the article caption in particular. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It looks cool, it has prime placement in the article, but I question the encyclopedic value of a false color image in regards to illustrating the topic as required by the criteria. I realize a plain picture is just yellowish brownish dust but either this image doesn't add much or the caption both here and in the article does a horrible job of telling us what is being shown and why it's important. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support if the issue of false colour is adequately addressed. With sufficient effort it seems one can download LANDSAT7 data directly [5][6], which I imagine comes in separate TIFF images for each channel; and presumably the wavelength sensitivity for each channel is known. The technical quality and value of this image is very good otherwise. As a side note, why aren't there any ground level photographs of this place in the article? Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 16:02:51 (UTC)
Original – The Gulf Fritillary (Agraulis vanillae) is a bright orange butterfly that inhabits South, North and Central America. In this case, photographed in Isla Margarita, Venezuela.
Support: Good work. Really like the light. Julia\talk 15:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not liking how parts of the butterfly are not as sharp as possible, but the picture as a whole is stunning. — ΛΧΣ21 19:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 11:26:39 (UTC)
Original – The White Elephant by John Tenniel, published in the 22 October 1892 issue of Punch
Reason
This illustration has encyclopedic value as an accurate representation of the deteriorating situation in Uganda in 1892 which eventually led to the demise of the British East Africa Company.
Stong Oppose, sorry. Without the caption, the artwork is largely meaningless; The caption is part of the work with early cartoons, and it makes no more sense to remove it than to remove the text from cartoon speech bubbles; in cartoons of this period, the caption serves the same purpose as speech bubbles do in modern cartoons. There's also some description issues - Governor is Cockney slang, the character is talking to what appears to be John Bull, certainly not Gerald Portal, which is what you linked; there's no evidence that the character is a circus proprietor, indeed, a reliable ource identifies him as a "parody of an African explorer". Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the corrections. It didn't occur to me to search for references by using the caption. I have applied the changes. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a crease down the middle (horizontally) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that's a gap between the wood blocks that made up the print. The magazines often weren't particularly careful about getting things perfectly aligned. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for the info. Arsonal has added the caption to the description page, is that enough for you? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's part of the image, and shouldn't be removed. It's a basic necessity for understanding the cartoon; I'd probably not support it even if it appeared in the articles (which it doesn't), frankly. Adam Cuerden(talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 21:46:39 (UTC)
Original – Area surrounding the stellar cluster NGC 2467, in the southern constellation of Puppis. This area is noted for star births. For an annotated image, see its description in Commons
Reason
Found this doing well at FPC on Commons. Huge, vivid, and interesting picture with decent EV. I took out two Hubble images since the article is so short and this one was better quality. If anyone has objections to that, please feel free to let me know!
All colour cameras and photos more or less roughly approximate the sensitivity of the human eye. This is good enough. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I expanded the image description and provided annotations (visible in Commons) that, I believe, help increase the EV of this image. In particular, one should note that the use of false colors is not at all arbitrary. In this image, red is used to denote the H-alpha line of hydrogen, while green denotes doubly-ionized oxygen OIII. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support image has excellent technical quality and good encyclopedic value. But I don't think the Hubble photos should be removed from the article, since the Hubble photos have far greater magnification (field of view only 3.5 arcminutes compared to 29.77 arcminutes in this picture). Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had posted a reply before but it seems to have disappeared! Odd. My only worry is that given the length of the article I won't be able to include the images without using a gallery, which is typically frowned upon nowadays. Would anyone object to a gallery in this case? ceranthor 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can also try expanding the article to give you more room. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope so. Thanks for your expansion. :) ceranthor 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support technically excellent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reinstalled the Hubble image and converted the link to Commons into a footnote. The article looks much, much better; thanks for your help Stigmatella. ceranthor 14:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nice image. Well done on the article expansion, too. Julia\talk 18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 00:31:04 (UTC)
Original – Wes Brady, ex-slave, Marshall, Texas. From the Federal Writers' ProjectSlave Narrative Collection, a compilation of type-written interviews, along with selected audio recordings and photographs, featuring more than 2000 former American slaves. Mr. Brady's story can be read at this link.
Reason
The Slave Narrative Collection was one of the largest single endeavors of the Federal Writers' Project, second only to the American Guides series. While the narratives it produced have been frequently studied, cited, taught in schools, and debated, the photographs in the collection have gotten less attention. Although the photographers of the FWP were amateurs (unlike those of the much better known FSA), and are not always as technically adept as we might want, having the same person interview and photograph a subject can produce revealing, deeply human results, as I think we see here. The original is here for comparison; my reconstructive efforts were pretty minimal; I left the white balance where it was (I think it's pretty good, though there are other, more contrasty scans of this photograph around) and cleaned up some scratches, mostly on the top third of the photograph.
Support as nominator --Chick Bowen 00:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious EV. ceranthor 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also echoing obvious EV here... Flaws can easily be forgiven for a 1937 project that probably wasn't about fine photography but documenting. — raekyt 23:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible there's a better photograph with less flaws in the 500 in the collection if someone was bothered do search through them.. [7]. — raekyt 14:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went through a lot of them, not all. I also was looking as much for subjective aesthetics as for technical proficiency, so someone else might come to different conclusions than I did about which one best represents the collection. Chick Bowen 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Photograph isn't perfect, but, if you want to document a project done by amateur photographers in 1937, then, well, what are you going to do? Take a better 1937 photograph? Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High EV for providing a good overview of a large international temporary event. Large resolution, providing great level of detail of the exhibition site and its surroundings.
Support as nominator --ELEKHHT 06:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is a great image and I'm sure some version of it is featurable. This one I'm not really convinced by the colors, but I haven't looked at the lossless original ('cause it's 227 mb!); in any case, I always prefer an edit of a historical image to have its changes documented, and an unedited jpg uploaded for comparison (the tiff is obviously not an option in this case). Chick Bowen 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think from looking at the smaller version of the original, that the colors are too saturated for the restoration. — raekyt 23:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon for that to happen: Adjusting levels often ups saturation a bit. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can happen, :P I'm just saying I think it's a bit over done. — raekyt 10:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the colours are okay, but I would support a more faithful version too. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the construction platform/scaffold thing in the background is to much of a flaw for something like this to promote it. It's quite repeatable of a photograph. — raekyt 23:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that very question, and I kind of agree with you given that these columns are obviously designed to frame that statue at the back, which is partly obscured by the painting platform. Still, I'd love to see some featured pictures showing the great variety and ambition of Soviet public architecture. Weak oppose. Chick Bowen 00:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per — raekyt - in his words, easily repeatable so no point accepting a picture with a flaw... gazhiley 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A beautiful image, but the scaffolding in the background is too much to overlook. What a shame. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done. I have trouble with the cache, so if you still see the former version, please click in the picture or in a link below, for example 1000px. Sémhur 20:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I can't see the original Library of Congress scan because it simply won't load, but it looks like there's some sort of damage to the right of the T in the ribbon thing to the right of the T in J. Massenet, right above where the two ribbons cross. There's also some on the opposite side of the poster, in the curve of the rightmost of the three ribbons on the left side, just to the left of the DE in Musique De. The one on the left could possibly be an error in the printing itself, but the one on the right looks like the color was just scraped off. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
better. More dynamic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg)
.svg)
_-_March_17,_1924.jpg)
.jpg)
