Oppose. Technically not great. Slightly tilted; awkward framing, showing an excess of floor. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: honestly Paul_021 I do not see where it is tilted and I do not understand what you mean for "awkward framing" for the composition yes, maybe there is too much floor.Thanks --LivioAndronico(talk) 13:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looked closer and you're right. There's not much of actual visible tilt; the perception is mainly from the imperfectly aligned pews. The altar rail also isn't horizontal, but that's probably in the architecture itself. I'm still bothered by the cut-off at the top though. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Paul_021, bottom and crop above are not good. --PetarM (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – PetarM (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Stable for a week, replacing older image by user Evan-Amos. I think embalage make too much. And some stack could be done. --PetarM (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 12:12:38 (UTC)
Original – 'Martyrdom of Imam Ali' is a painting by Yousef Abdinejad depicting the assassination incident of Ali ibn Abi Talib by ibn Muljam, while Ali is saying prayer.
Reason
The file is large enough and of a suitable resolution. The EV is already presented in 'Assassination of Ali' where the painting is analysed. Among other things, the painter has tried to show a distinction between the assassin, ibn Muljam, and the target, Ali, by using suitable colors for each case.
Support as nominator – Mhhosseintalk 12:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like it is scanned from a printed page - unsharp at full size, and horizontal streaks all over. --Janke | Talk 16:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was painted on cardboard, which I think is where the horizontal bands come from. And while it is unsharp at full size (which is huge), it's pretty sharp at the minimum FPC resolution. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture of a beautiful and artistic painting about an important historical event.--Mbazri (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment something doesn't look right, it looks awfully soft, like it was a scanned from a photograph in a book and not the painting itself. Is there any info on the source of this image? Mattximus (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it missing a petal or two? At least that's what it looks like... --Janke | Talk 12:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The small budding flower in the background shows similar signs. Looking here it is a common feature, not missing. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – good lighting, composition, has EV. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Chris Woodrich for nominating my photo. Question: May I actually vote? Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) PS: my electronic signature does not work on Wikipedia, but on wikimedia. How is that possible? I do write articles on Wikipedia.[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 08:34:35 (UTC)
Original – Ipomoea pes-tigridis is a species of Ipomoea and Convolvulaceae family. It is known as tiger's footprint due to the shape of leaf. It grows in roadsides and sea coasts which sea level is between 0 and 400 m.
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the Bud of Tiger's footprint.
Support as nominator – AntanO 08:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. WiiWillieWiki 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would like to see a flower, not just an unopened bud. --Janke | Talk 18:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plant is famous for the shape of it's leaves, and I'm not sure what this is a picture of, is it the bud of the flower? Either way, no EV for this plant. Mattximus (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJanke, Mattximus - I don't know how much you are aware of this plant. I have created Ipomoea pes-tigridis and I did not mentioned about this bud since I could not find source. But, I know the bud is unusual and sometime people think it as flower due to its shape. --AntanO 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. WiiWillieWiki 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the teeth? I'd support something with a closed mouth, but the teeth are too distracting (and variable between specimens) for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Needs to see a dentist. ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Chris. Distracting. Sca (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have thought that the teeth being visible only adds to the EV. If anything it's a beautiful photograph (very high quality) of a rather ugly-looking animal (by human standards). I'm surprised that the lack of good dentistry is being used as a rationale. nagualdesign 06:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So was I. Chris might wish to explain how he can can reject this nomination as "variable between specimens", yet approve the pink flower above when specimens can be blue or green! Reject by all means, but voters (especially the admin) should be consistent in their logic if the FP project is to have credibility. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "reject" anything. I simply made a comment. And in case you missed it, my main problem was with this specimen's teeth. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is what the other !voters focused on. The teeth. You got comments about them on Commons too. I'm not sure how this is a surprise to you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Chris, you did as you say only comment not reject: but you did say "variable between specimens", hence my reaction. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write "Oppose" in bold. I have no idea where you got the idea that anything other than a support is a rejection. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologisd for saying you rejected my nomination. Read what I wrote above. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@nagualdesign: The problem is not the visibility of the teeth, per se. The problem is the distraction they pose, which detracts from the aesthetics of the image. It's the same reason people frequently oppose images for having distracting backgrounds, even if technically the images are perfect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetics? Be serious. Anthropomorphic judgmentalism has no place here! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're distracting in the same way that backgrounds are sometimes distracting, since they form part of the subject. They certainly draw your attention, but that is not the same as being distracting. I'd say it's the opposite. I expect that a crab-eating animal requires teeth like a can opener. As for the comments on Commons, the image gained unanimous support despite people's jokes about the teeth. Daniel Case's comment about the teeth was, "his teeth, while far from perfect, are better than the mountain gorilla's", and by that I think he was referring to this dentally challenged specimen (also a Featured Picture there). nagualdesign 01:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gorilla is in no way dentally challenged. 100% healthy. It is quite dangerous to make this type of criticism if you are not at all familiar with the species. Blackened teeeth are typical for wild gorillas. Charlesjsharp 11:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Dentally challenged" was just tongue-in-cheek remark, you plonker. It isn't a medical term, and I don't think it was even slightly dangerous. And I am reasonably familiar with the species, thanks. This isn't the nineteeenth century. Are you saying that the macaque's teeth aren't typical? nagualdesign 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Aesthetically pleasing or not, I don't think this photo of this specimen is representative of the species in general. Sure, wild animals often have plenty of health conditions that alter their appearance, but unless I'm mistaken we usually try to feature photos of healthy and intact individuals. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eye-catching image; I have added it as the lead image in Helleborus orientalis because, unless things have changed since I used to be more active at FPC, it needs to have been in an article here for seven days. The previous image there was added by Casliber almost two years ago in January 2015 so pinging him to ensure he's aware I've changed it. I would have preferred an article with a bit more substance (regretfully, I don't know enough about the topic to do anything myself) but there is just about sufficient EV provided. Will support if it remains stable in the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hartelijk dank voor uw hulp.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clear crisp image of flower, composition nice too. Also better taxobox image....might just have to expand article now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we be sure that a specimen grown in the Netherlands accurately represents the species? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Helleborus orientalis with dotted flowers (the so-called 'Freckels') are often hand pollinated in the Netherlands because of the spots. This Helleborus orientalis is in my garden.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but Helleborus orientalis appears to be a commercially developed product in Europe with many different colours and cannot therefore be representative of the native species. The image that previously illustrated the article is green and from Germany so is not suitable either. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about if we change the label to "cultivated variety?" We (presumably) have Featured Pictures of dog and cat breeds (must check). what we have here is an obscure wild plant that has been bred and cultivated for centuries (much like a rose). I was planning on exoanding the article so we could show both pix FWIW...just hard to get info. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks fine, and if Cas ends up expanding this article and covering the commercial/hand-pollinated version, this will have even better EV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - now further over the bar for EV after the expansion so far done by Cas (thanks!). SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 18:42:19 (UTC)
Original – Photograph of cased-daguerreotype studio portrait of brain-injury survivor Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) shown holding the tamping iron which injured him. Includes view of original embossed brass mat.
Reason
After much work (documented on the file talk page) I believe this is now the finest quality hi-res version of this unique historical image available anywhere. Although it's only 811 × 952 pixels I have previously nominated another image under similar circumstances, which is now a Featured Picture.
Support as nominator – nagualdesign 18:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am Ok with a 1500px exception, it is historic + high EV, I like to support but have two reservations. 1- nom image is derived from a 436×504 pixel original [1], FP criterion 2 says "if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired." Are there any indications why a higher resolution is not realistic? (for example, does the OTRS email say anything, do we know how/where the original photograph is maintained at the university, is it in public display, etc.) 2- regarding the talk page discussion [2], what is the source of this: [3] high res upper body image? can it be uploaded to Commons with a copyright tag? Bammesk (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC) . . . Sidenote: we also have this image: [4] high resolution but not sharp. Bammesk (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made an exhaustive search to find a larger image and the best I could find was this. As I discussed on the image file talk page it's undoubtedly a crop of the original photograph by Jack and Beverly Wilgus. No, I have not contacted anybody by email looking for a higher resolution source, I only looked online. According to the file description the original daguerreotype now resides at the Warren Anatomical Museum, Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. I have no idea whether it's on public display. Although I haven't uploaded the original headshot used to make this image I did upload this, which is also used in the article. There are no hi-res images of the entire thing available, aside from this one. nagualdesign 01:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we have an OTRS email/permission to use this low resolution image. The nominated image is also derived from this higher resolution version, so we need to know whether or not the higher resolution image can be licensed/uploaded on Commons. The permission section of this page says the copyright holder has sent Wikipedia an email, perhaps the content of the email can clarify things. Bammesk (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what you're saying. My assumption was that since the high resolution image is undoubtedly from the same source it would be permissible under the same licensing conditions. Or rather, that using it as part of the enlarged image would be permissible. I've posted a request at the OTRS Noticeboard. You'll have to forgive my ignorance with this sort of thing. nagualdesign 05:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign: Sorry, the ticket does not address resolution or any other file. — JeffG. ツ 05:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained at the file talk page, the hi-res, cropped source image has the same provenance as the low-res, complete source image. They are undoubtedly one and the same, but one of them has been cropped and the other reduced in scale. So where does this leave us? nagualdesign 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagualdesign and Bammesk: Perhaps uploader @Brightbytes: could shed some light on this? I have also reached out via email. — JeffG. ツ 06:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Creative Commons' view is that the licensing of a low-resolution work under a CC licence also grants that same licence to higher resolution copies of the same work.[5] We'll probably have to check whether CC was explicitly specified in the OTRS permission. That said, I don't think the "no higher resolution could realistically be acquired" clause can be considered satisfied without someone asking the Warren Anatomical Museum to determine if taking a new photograph is possible. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for that! I was beginning to think the image would have to be deleted. I'll look into emailing the Warren Anatomical Museum. Whether they say yes or no, we're still going to end up with a good result. Thanks, Paul. nagualdesign 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've written an email to Dominic Hall, the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum. nagualdesign 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paul_012, Nagualdesign: That's a misreading of "same work". The word "work" refers to an image-file, not the physical daguerreotype, or the process of creating an image-file. In reading both [6] and [7], a CC license for A can be applied to B only if transforming A to B requires no application of expressive or original choices. In our case, the fine details of 2 cannot be created from 1 unless one applies expressive or original choices. Therefore 2 is a separate and distinct work in comparison to 1. The license for 1 doesn't apply to 2. An example: a license granting commercial use of a 100x100 pixel scaled-down less-detailed version of an image does not grant permission to profit from a 10000x10000 pixel more-detailed original version of the image. Bammesk (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what the FAQ page says. What I read is that a CC license given to a scaled-down image will also apply to the original from which it was created, as long as no originality was involved in the scaling-down process. This was the subject of a bit of drama back when CC released the FAQ. As it was demonstrated on the image talk page that 1 (downsampled) and 2 (cropped) are derived from the same original, they can be considered the same work (assuming cropping and downsampling doesn't involve originality). Of course, minus the frame the image would be a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work of art, which would also be regarded as Public Domain for Wikimedia's purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence settles it. Image 2 is in public domain [8]. I support the nom if image 2 is uploaded to Commons and tagged. In case the original wasn't published/distributed before 1923, then these tags should work: [9], [10]. BTW the museum doesn't allow photography [11]. Sidenote: What I read in [12] and [13] is that a CC license given to image-X will also apply to any image which is created from image-X, as long as no originality was involved in the creation process. It no longer matters for this nom though, with image 2 being in public domain. Bammesk (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't honestly say I understand everything written in the above 3 comments, but it sounds like were okay, right? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if someone else uploads the cropped, hi-res image and provides the proper licensing details, since I've been wandering through a few minefields recently and I haven't got the nerve to face another at the moment. Thank you in advance. By the way, I haven't heard back from the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum, although I did suggest that he might contact the Commons directly and provided him with an email address, so he may have done that. nagualdesign 05:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose It doesn't transfer main concept. Lstfllw203 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "concept" I assume you mean: advocacy, reform movements. How well this image conveys the "concept" is debatable. I revised the article list above. This has been the lead image in two articles: Chartism (about 10 years) and William Edward Kilburn (3 years). It has EV in both. Bammesk (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Nice historical artifact, but image doesn't convey a particular theme or message. Sca (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Pretty hazy and blurry; while it's definitely better thanthe original, something like this with better color correction and artifact removal would seem like a better candidate. WiiWillieWiki 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WiiWillieWiki, the original is here at the Royal Collection, which has the physical copy. We don't color-correct or crop images of historic works, if published by the museum or gallery holding the actual physical work. That would be original research. Bammesk (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 05:53:50 (UTC)
Original – A screenshot of the real-time strategy game Tooth and Tail, in which the player assumes the role of a commander of an army of animals.
Reason
I think this image meets the FPC criteria because it is a copyright-free (though yet to be license reviewed on Commons. You can view the license here), good looking, high resolution screenshot that greatly benefits the article. The screenshot is invaluable to the article and has high EV because it shows the reader the HUD, the art-style, and some of the gameplay (structures, units, etc). Though the screenshot's shortest side is less than 1500px, all other featured video game screenshots are under, too. It is unlikely that a screenshot of higher resolution would be obtainable simply due to the limitations of the topic (x1080 and x1440 are the usual resolutions of monitors. x2160 is rare). This is my first featured picture nomination, so I apologise if I missed anything.
Support - Native resolution, so 1500px requirement unrealistic. I would consider the split screen seriously, as in my experience (albeit quite dated; I haven't been anything close to a serious gamer in a decade) split screen RTS multiplayer is very rare. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: I did consider nominating the split screen screenshot (as you're right, split screen (in general) is rare nowadays) but in my opinion it's too crowded with the two HUDS. It also doesn't include the quest information present in the top left of this image as this is a screenshot of a single-player match while the other one is of a multiplayer one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Agree with Kaldari that it should be croped (mainly from left, a little on right) to focus more clearly on the structure. Plenty of pixels for that. (It can still be off-center, tho.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No need to crop. IMO, it's nice to have some of the surroundings, actually it improves EV. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Siting was a key consideration in the construction of castles, and as such the non-architectural aspects of the image are valuable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could chop off at least 25% of the left side and it would still illustrate the surroundings well. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As currently cropped does not illustrate article well. Charlesjsharp (talk)
Support - Very nice. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – not that it matters, but at full size the distortion on the column mounted statue heads is a bit distracting. Bammesk (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, please don't change the vibrance. --Ailura (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Charles' observation about the focus being a bit soft, but at anything other than full resolution this isn't noticeable. The good composition and the fact that it shows the subject in the context of her notability more than make up for this. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hear you guys. Not sure how to withdraw a nomination over here as this is my first submission, but I can see which way the wind is blowing here. Thanks for your input and this can be withdrawn/closed so as to waste as little editor time as possible. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I attempted to recover the highlights but they're completely blown out, so it isn't possible. Sorry. nagualdesign 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's awkward with water because reducing the shutter speed or aperture necessarily affects the quality of the image. Not being able to see the screen easily in full sun doesn't help either. I always take bracketed shots then see what I've got when I get home. It's great that these smartphone cameras can take photos at ISO 32 (my Canon only goes down to ISO 100) but I don't suppose it will go any lower. The solution is to use a neutral-density filter.linknagualdesign 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nagualdesign It looks like this problem isn't a new one for photographers attempting to catch a photo of Wainui falls on a sunny day. It is surprising how little the falls have changed in over 100 years. Are the FA criteria graded the same for old historical photos such as this one? Obviously this one is blown in the highlights too, but for the time it is probably a very good image. I can get a very hi-res scan for about $20 from the Nelson Provincial Museum if you think it is worth it. I could also request this photograph which is of the Wainui River along the track up to Wainui Falls (although there probably wasn't a track in those days), it isn't as over exposed. Both of these photos are currently added to the Wainui Falls article and give valuable historical context, so they have EV. What do you think? — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know more about photography than I do about the ins and outs of Featured Picture candidates, but perhaps someone else can answer your questions. nagualdesign 01:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the low-res version on Commons, there looks to be some detail in there. Might be worth it. Can't guarantee it, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there are bright spots along the edge of the ceiling, for example at x,y=5525,1360 (relative to top left corner), perhaps stitching error of bracketed images? Also a fuzzy patch at x,y=3430,4020. I think the image can use a touch up. Bammesk (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question After Googling this, I just ask if the colours are true? Looks over-saturated, but I know depth affects underwater images so I don't know whether that's the right explanation. 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Charlesjsharp (talk)
Comment – the glare on the upper part of the canvas is distracting. It look like it can be removed with better lighting. Bammesk (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like the original upload better!, I think it is more natural. Just my opinion. On a positive note: good EV and very good addition to the encyclopedia. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – PetarM (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No disrespect, but they don't look too appetizing, compared with the other photos in the article. --Janke | Talk 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Janke This is what healty food look like. In description you could read "Kifli made with spelt flour". So not wheat flour, and they taste very good. One might think they are overburnt, but they arent. Brown looking due to flour and eggs. --PetarM (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify; it's not the color, it's the irregular and all different shapes that kills the photo for me. Health food can look good, too! ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tbvdm (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but size is borderline minimum requirement. Also, creator name may suggest a commercial uploader? --Janke | Talk 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less than ordinary and doesn't show village at all well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to size. feminist (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Reasonable technical quality, but composition seems rather haphazard, as if someone looked out from the balcony of his chalet and snapped a quick one. Sca (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The image should be in at least C. tommasinianus before nomination. The English Wikipedia requires that images be used on the English Wikipedia before they can be given featured picture status. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. English Wikipedia added. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — --Janke | Talk 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Wondering a bit about saturation. Sca (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the Commons category, the depth of the flowers' color seems to vary somewhat between specimens and lighting. The photographer would be best to ask about how they looked in person, but from browsing the category the saturation appears reasonable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answer The color is okay. It was clear and sunny weather. The flowers are illuminated by the sun.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please caption the image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately, the image has now been removed by other editors from both the articles it was added to; so I think this nomination needs to be at least paused. I think it's a good and valuable image, but perhaps the nominator needs to look a bit further into how images are used on Wikipedia - in particular, I think adding it to articles with the caption "Beautiful flowers of Crocus tommasinianus" has inclined other editors to remove it, as image captions on Wikipedia should to be neutral and descriptive and avoid puffery. Reading through WP:IUP and WP:CAPTION may be helpful in suggesting how to add images to articles in a way that makes clear their encyclopedic value. TSP (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 02:51:14 (UTC)
Original – The group of nine documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi
Reason
Very high resolution copy of the 9 documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi, high EV. This image contains all nine signed sheets of the Treaty. In the previous FPC for the Waitangi Sheet (only one of the 9 sheets of the Treaty), there were a couple of requests in the that discussion for someone to upload all the sheets as a single image.
Comment - Would probably be better if the backing for the damaged treaties were removed, leaving only the treaties themselves. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is the backing paper for the treaties. Which is part of them now. I already removed the backgrounds. Easy enough to to remove them though. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm afraid I don't see the value in arranging all these documents in a single image. I'd suggest the pages should be in individual files nominated as a featured image set; which is certainly something we've promoted before (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/ButterflyScaleMicroscopy) though I can't actually see in mentioned the rules. (I'd also agree with Chris about removal of the backing paper - I see the argument that the backing paper is part of the current state of the treaties, but I don't think it has historical significance to make up for it distracting from the primary subject.) TSP (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the backing paper, might take the cache a while to catch up though.— Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The value in arranging all these documents together is that, in context, they are not separate documents. Together these 9 documents are the Treaty. Each document by itself is not the treaty, though each contains the treaty text, there are just different sheets because they were all sent around the country separately (no email in the 19th century). While I agree that all the copies could be uploaded as a featured set, the Treaty as one image is actually more important from an encyclopedic value standpoint than any individual sheet by itself. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assuming the relative sizes of the documents are accurately represented, this is a case where I think a composite image is superior as a featured set won't allow the reader to easily grasp the differences. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012. The relative sizes are accurate. I based the relative sizes off of the lower resolution national archives composite, and I have also checked with regards to pictures of the documents when they were on display (See here), just to check and make sure that the National Archives composite was also accurate. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The documents can be read, and having them all together on the one image has strong EV - especially in light of the differences between the versions. I saw these documents on display at Wellington, and viewing them together has a lot of punch. Nick-D (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the white background makes the image seem rather washed out. Wonder if a dark background would look better? (Not sure though if the backing paper should be included in that case.) Also, is there a more meaningful order by which the treaties could be arranged other than by size, that would still allow for an aesthetically balanced image? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just went and looked at the high quality copies made of the treaties that are on display at Te Papa, on those, they do not replicate the backing paper, which leads me to agree that these are not considered part of the treaties and should remain removed (per comments above and contrary to what I stated above). As for a dark background, looking on commons, other images of treaties do not use dark backgrounds, but rather use white or whatever was in the back of the scan/image of the treaty. As for order, the Waitangi Sheet was the first signed, so it should be on the left (It was first signed on Feb 6th, though additional signatures and another sheet of parchment were added and attached in March). As for the others, they were sent around the country to collect additional signatures over the next few months and there isn't really any meaningful 'order' to place them in. [14] and [15] use an order, but it is arbitrary, and other scholorary sources never refer to the treaty sheets by 'number' but rather by their names (although the Waitangi Sheet is always first), Archives NZ's ebook on the treaty does not list numbers, and the listed order in the ebook doesn't even match the numbers they chose for listing them for download. In short, aside from the Waitangi Sheet on the left, the others should probably just be placed in an aesthetically pleasing manner (I chose to maximise space).
As an additional note, I forgot to transclude this discussion for two days after creating it, so it would be nice to keep it open an extra couple days to see if it gets enough support. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 03:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request for guidance: I've addressed lots of concerns by many of the editors above, but nobody seems keen to support. Not sure how to proceed as it seems that all the comments and changes to the image have derailed this proposal. I am willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the quality of the image, such as darken the background to some shade of grey or something? It seems silly that this should not be considered a featured image in some form. Would it be better with a slightly darker background colour? Would it be better if I moved the sheets slightly closer together? Should I just give up and upload all of the other sheets as independent images and nominate them as a featured set (or is this composite part of the featured set)? Just looking for some guidance here as I am willing and able but do not know what I have to do to improve the image to get it to meet FP criteria and I feel like I am running out of time. What is the policy on 're-noninations' if I work to address some of the issues? Pinging previous commenters. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 03:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Interior.jpg)
Comment: honestly Paul_021 I do not see where it is tilted and I do not understand what you mean for "awkward framing" for the composition yes, maybe there is too much floor.Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
_03.jpg)
.jpg)
_Labuk_Bay.jpg)
"Dentally challenged" was just tongue-in-cheek remark, you plonker. It isn't a medical term, and I don't think it was even slightly dangerous. And I am reasonably familiar with the species, thanks. This isn't the nineteeenth century. Are you saying that the macaque's teeth aren't typical? nagualdesign 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)_female.jpg)
Done the dust spots. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
_-_Interior.jpg){kind=link}
_yawn.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_adult_male.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
,_Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei.jpg){kind=link}
,_Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}