Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2013 at 08:15:43 (UTC)
Original – Proster for an American production of Franz von Suppé's Fatinitza, a comic opera involving a Russian lieutenant dressing up as a woman, and accidentally causing the father of the girl he loves to fall in love with him.
Reason
Good-quality poster of a notable opera. Would have preferred a colour version - coloured images thumbnail a bit better - but, despite that, in my opinion this is the best of the LoC posters for the opera.
Comment I wish the caption would clarify what you're supposed to do with this. Do you attach this to the camera lens somehow?-- mcshadyplTC04:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Great encyclopedic value and executed fairly well, but I think knowing the degree of light reduction (3 stops or thereabouts?) would add significant value. Juliancolton (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to contact the creator and hear him out. If I get any information, I'll add it here as well as on the file page. --Kimsey0 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a ND4 (2 stops light reduction) according to the creator of the picture. I have updated the description page accordingly. --Kimsey0 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder i you would crop out most of the fingers and have the lens be about half of the entire image would look better. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2013 at 08:04:00 (UTC)
Original – Nudibranch (Nembrotha cristata), a shell-less mollusc in the waters of Bunaken National Park, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Bunaken has a very rich coral ecosystem with about 390 species of coral.
Reason
Excellent depiction of the Nembrotha cristata in its natural habitat
I also support the Alt. Either one is good for me, though I do feel the Alt has a bit more EV in regards to the animal itself and the original more EV in regards to the environment. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you like the alt, but I don't think that is a reason to oppose the original which shows the nudibranch from a different angle and with a better depiction of its natural habitat (and therefore has considerable EV also in the Bunaken article). Probably the alt could replace the current side-view image in the article. --ELEKHHT07:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support original Criteria 7: "descriptive, informative and complete file description in English", please expand description further. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see Adam and Wingtip saying they support both, Pine opposing the original and supporting the alt, and two late !votes which show a preference for the ALT. Elekhh did not mention the alt at all, while the other two only supported the original. Excluding the late !votes, that's Original 5-1, ALT 4-0. Just in case the numbers are unclear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the Alt was only included in the broader article about the genus but not the article about the species, that's why I abstained at this time. I added it now to the species article where I think it fits very well together with the currently promoted image. If it stays stable it might be worth re-nominating as a second FP. --ELEKHHT06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2013 at 07:05:20 (UTC)
Original – Eurasian Sparrowhawk with its prey
Reason
The image was nominated before here, but it was not cropped properly. In this nomination, we have a cropped version of the image which has good quality and high EV
Neutral for now. How can a picture of a hill not show the whole hill? I must be missing something that everyone else is seeing, hence why I don't oppose just yet; I'll wait for more votes. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅18:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole hill could only be shown from above, in which case you wouldn't see its height. By subjects of this scale, it is often necessary to have multiple images to get the 'complete picture'. In this case, the hill is notable because it is part of Quito. The image depicts the hill's appearance from the historic centre of the city, as people living in the city see it every day. Its aesthetic appeal is in the contrast between the regular street grid and the natural shape of the hill. --ELEKHHT06:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad picture, a quality picture, I'm of the same mind as Wingtipvortex: whole hill would be superior. Background objects are "backgroundy" (distant, blue, not crystal). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question This is a nice photo, but I'm unsure about what it actually depicts - is there a special significance to the canal and people boating on it? I note that they're wearing traditional dress, but this doesn't really stand out given the composition. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning oppose There's a fair bit of empty space in this image, which detracts from its impact (for instance, the ditch and scrub in the foreground and all the railway lines behind the train). This is a high quality image with EV, but I don't think that it has the kind of visual impact which other FPs of trains have. For instance, the FPs File:SBB Re 460 Schottikon alternate crop.jpg, File:IORE beim Torneträsk.jpg and File:NSB Di 4 Saltfjell.jpg have a similar perspective on the train, but are more visually interesting. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ALT
I think that the Alt is an improvement, but unfortunately it still lacks strong visual impact. I've played around with a few different crops as well, and couldn't get any of them to produce a better result. I think that the angle at which the photo was taken relative to the tracks and train is the underlying issue here. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Original The image is good quality and has decent EV, but I think it is not the best WP has to offer, as there is no visual impact. Oppose Alt, composition is not good. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Original not bad, but not great either. Alt crop makes composition poor, per Wingtipvortex. Too much empty space in original. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2013 at 20:16:01 (UTC)
Original – Caption provided by the U.S. Government: "A common sight among the Armenian refugees in Syria. An Armenian child dead in the fields within sight of help and safety at Aleppo."
Reason
In my humble opinion, one of the most dramatic photographs of the Armenian Genocide. An Armenian woman is trying to help her/a child as she lays dead in the middle of the Syrian desert. What is most interesting is that the child is dead within sight of help and safety of other people seen in the background. I presume that they are purposely neglecting the child so that she can die or that death was just so common that it was a normal sight. Over all, great EV and good quality for such an old photograph.
Comment So to summarize your description: you have absolutely no idea what is going on in this photo. How do you know that this child is dead? -- mcshadyplTC04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The death of the child and other details are provided by the United States government. Please see the link in the caption of the photo. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the scan appears to be rather poor, and some restoration work would be welcome. That said, the image has a lot of EV and would likely get my support if in good condition. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅18:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm getting an image size of 1500, which is fine, but this seems to have been increased in size, only making a soft image slightly softer. First source link doesn't link to anything. (LC # link works fine.) Date is 1915 on image description page, but where did this date come from? LOC states unknown date. I'm on the fence about the image. Needs work done to it for sure though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 1 uploaded. There were some long fold marks that needed fixed. Support alt 1. Note the image may be a tiny bit overexposed, but I don't think it's particularly bad in this case. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT1: Having uploaded a few featured posters myself, I'm aware of how hard it is to get good, free, non-JPG-artefacted posters. Though this is a bit more simple than most of our current featured stuff, it's still iconic and quite pleasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not for voting' - Some red ink is missing here, apparently showing yellow ink beneath it, hinting the poster should have a vermillion tint.
First of all, let me apologise for the horrible formatting here. I couldn't get the alignments right without doing it this way.
Anyway, red does tend to fade to vermillion, but the current colour is also one that was in use. Now, given people's tendency to correct colours without access to originals, I'm not surprised it varies a bit online, but I did notice some hints of yellow ink while doing the restoration (see sample, left), so I'm pretty sure the red was meant to be on the vermillion side, and shouldn't be corrected too far towards "true" red. Adam Cuerden(talk)19:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 Just watched this movie for second time, awesome to see it here. Adam, why is "Restored by Adam Cuerden." in the image description when it already appears in author section? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to be clear it was a restoration, and distinguish the description from the old image's. You'll note it's followed by a brief description of the restoration. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is overall very over-exposed, particularly in the bottom left corner due to the headlights. This image would be better served with a lower shutter speed, I think. -- mcshadyplTC19:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the very low shutter speed doesn't just allow us to focus more on the subject, rather than the inevitable handful of blurred cars? I'd be interested to hear what some of our regular photographers think of this shot. I love it, but I'm going to hold off support until I've heard some more views. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I prefer the long exposure in this case. Some people consider any and all blurring to be a bad thing, but I think visible cars in the foreground would be a big distraction. With a shorter shutter speed, even if you did 'freeze' the cars, you'd still have their headlights/tail lights shining prominently (and you'd probably have the added downside of higher noise due to high ISO and/or the foreground out of focus due to small depth of field with a wider aperture). At least a long exposure gives the feeling of flow around the monument. But I do agree, it's slightly too bright for my tastes. It seems basically 'correctly exposed' in terms of the luminosity curve, but sometimes scenes need to be brighter or darker to give the right ambiance, and I think this is an example of that. Just my opinion though. :) Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not a professional photographer, but I can say that as a layperson with an eye for artistic detail and a sense of composition, this picture looks very good to me! If it meets all other technical criteria (properly licensed, image size, etc.) I see no reason aesthetically why it should not become a featured picture. The overexposure in the bottom left (if "over" is the right word) does not detract from its quality at all, for me. I think it's a great shot. KDS4444Talk12:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality and very good EV. Blown highlights in the lights are to be expected of long, single-exposure night photography. The head/tail light trails make the image very dynamic. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long exposure is not only an artistic means to focus on static objects in a dynamic environment, it also allows poor-light images at low ISO levels/graininess. Here it is a perfectly apt choice and very well executed. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Do you think it would look better if we cropped to just above the word "Reference"? It's a little too much of a focus, in my opinion. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Seems like very low EV for this photograph. Is there some reason this library is important to Santa Clara? What makes it more than just a photograph of a random building in the city? Mattximus (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I think there is little EV to this photograph, not because it does not show the library well, but because there is not a whole lot of discussion regarding the library in the article. That said, the image is of good technical quality. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2013 at 11:58:02 (UTC)
Original – Anatomy of the nematode C. elegans
Reason
Image is of excellent quality and technical standard, conveys its subject matter concisely and completely, contains no artifacts, and still has "wow" factor.
Support I haven't error-checked it against other illustrations, but it looks pretty accurate off-hand. It's also beautiful work, with nice use of partial transparencies and gradients, suitable for textbook use. A great illustration of a very important model organismAdam Cuerden(talk)01:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Adam! And please feel free to fact-check — my current employer is a microbiologist who specializes in this organism, and I had him vet the image before I put it up here for consideration. He said it looked very good. But the best independent verifiable resource for checking is probably the Wormatlas page on hermaphrodites. KDS4444Talk04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Part of the wow factor is that this shows how many offspring this self-fertilizing hermaphrodite species can produce as the eggs pass by the spermathecae and get fertilized. The drawing is pretty and unusual enough that it piques curiosity, and clear enough that it provides some answers. AndrewPapp (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very useful diagram, one minor comment, the arrow for the gut lumen sort of has two possible features it could point to, could you shift it slightly to the left to remove any possibility of confusion?Terri G (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb diagram of a fascinating anatomy and physiology. IMHO this is exactly the sort of thing that FP should be about, not the endless stream of dime-a-dozen portraits and dull snapshots it seems to have become. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why, yes there was. I have removed it. Please let me know if you spot any other such typos or errors-- I want this to be as perfect as possible. Thank you! KDS4444Talk12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nomination got up to 4 supports, but, well, we're in a bit of a slump just now with everyone on holiday, so a lot of things are underreviewed. I'm pretty sure this would have passed already in any more normal month. Hat tip to User:Brandmeister - I did the restoration, but he found and nominated the image the first time.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 06:28:31 (UTC)
Set photo 1 original – Dorsal view of Papilio demoleusSet photo 2 original – Side view of Papilio demoleus
Reason
Good quality photo pair. I just replaced a lower quality dorsal picture in the article with the one in this set. The lead image in this article File:Lime_Butterfly_Papilio_demoleus.jpg is already featured but it provides an off-center view and I think these photos add significant value to the article.
Comment I like the lead image, I don't see anything wrong with it. These two are very pretty as well. Can all three be a set? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 06:48:13 (UTC)
Original – A map showing the trail used by the Pony Express. This map was made by William Henry Jackson and reissued, with some additions, in 1951. This was reissued, again, by the American Pioneer Trails Association in 1960.
Reason
High resolution, high quality, well illustrated. Used in several articles. Previous nomination was... odd.
Supportoriginal (or any other restoration). I'm not so sure about the current restoration though. It seems to leave visible 60px clone marks to remove tiny specks of dirt where a very soft 12pt spot healing brush would have been quite sufficient. Also, I'm not even sure if those spots weren't in the 1950s reprint for an added vintage feel. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. There are a number of locations where spots have been removed wholesale by using a large clone stamp, which leads to impurities being introduced to the copy that just weren't there in the original. For instance, to the right of the "1861" in the title is now a dark spot cloned there from somewhere else that now looks like a fingerprint. As I said, a small spot healing brush is a much better method to remove those tiny specks than a large clone stamp. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 08:40:40 (UTC)
Original – Indian palm squirrel (Funambulus palmarum) also known as three-striped palm squirrel, is a species of rodent in the family Sciuridae. It is found naturally in India and Sri Lanka. Squirrels are considered sacred (as per Hinduism) in India and are not to be harmed.
Reason
Unique picture of mother and pup of Indian palm squirrel. Mother squirrel shares its feeling with its pup, which is in a cage.
Oppose as-is. The caption is speculative and unencyclopaedic. No comment on the image's quality or appropriateness of black-and-white photography. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Quality is good, EV is great. Very "wow" image. I do not agree with the image being in B&W, it seems to me as a cheap way to add more emotion. If this image is impossible to retake, I'd overlook the B&W. Agree with Paul that the caption is not WP-material. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Muhammad. I especially want to see an animal like this in color. If it's a human subject, this would be less important. -- mcshadyplTC18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a very powerful picture (and would not look out of place on an animal rights/liberation pamphlet, or the cover of a work looking at non-human emotion) but I have to agree that the EV is somewhat lacking. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 23:16:42 (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
The original nomination got very little feedback, but I think it's a very good image, so I've tweaked it a bit and have decided to renominate.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2013 at 23:57:28 (UTC)
Original – Poster shows a soldier in a trench holding a grenade. Text: And you? Subscribe to the 7th War Loan at the k.k. pr. Öst. Creditanstalt f.H.u.G.. Published by Wien : Gesellschaft für Graphische Industrie. Poster measures 95 by 63 centimetres (37 × 25 in).
True, I just recall that you are (in general) opposed to such changes in restoration. I'd probably support a cropped version, but right now that's a lot of wasted space for a FP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know about the ethics of cropping historical images. From an aesthetic POV, the original looks good, from an EV POV, a crop would suit better --Muhammad(talk)10:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, where two images are shoved onto a plate anyway, and were obviously intended to be cropped somewhat, I don't object so much, so long as the approximate original is maintained. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 02:15:56 (UTC)
Original – Corona discharge on corona ring of 500 kV overhead power line. A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid surrounding a conductor that is electrically energized. The discharge will occur when the strength (potential gradient) of the electric field around the conductor is high enough to form a conductive region, but not high enough to cause electrical breakdown or arcing to nearby objects.
Comment. This is in desperate need of an explanation to be useful. Was the photo taken in the daylight but with a very short exposure, or was it taken at night? Is the phenomenon visible only at long exposures but not with the naked eye? Was it taken with a some kind of filter, or are the colours and luminosity 'au naturel'? I suspect I know the answers to the questions (they're somewhat rhetorical), but it's a photo that needs explaining in the caption, otherwise we're not really sure what we're looking at. Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the picture was taken during the night to have more visual impact than the picture taken during a day as the discharge around the conductor has such brilliance that can be quite spectacular during the night. And the phenomenon is visible with the naked eye and I don't think any filter is required to capture this phenomenon.--Nikhil(talk) 05:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bird looks spectacular, but the out of focus branch in the foreground spoils the photo somewhat (at least for FP status, IMO) Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2013 at 09:23:39 (UTC)
Original – The pomegranate (Punica granatum), is a fruit-bearing deciduousshrub or small tree growing between 5–8 meters (16–26 ft) tall. In the Northern Hemisphere, the fruit is typically in season from September to February. In the Southern Hemisphere, the pomegranate is in season from March to May.
Reason
Detailed view of Pomegranate seeds in a fresh fruit
I tend to agree ... To me, this looks a bit like a picture from a "Can guess what this is?" puzzle featuring familiar objects taken from strange angles. 86.130.66.152 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2013 at 04:07:40 (UTC)
Original – Mangrove Apple or Crabapple Mangrove (Sonneratia caseolaris), is a species of plant in the Lythraceae family. The tree is also sometimes known as Cork tree, because fishermen in some areas make fishing net floats by shaping the pneumatophores into small floats.
Reason
The picture has QI and VI in Commons and the fruit is rarely known to people
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2013 at 11:31:41 (UTC)
Original – Map of the Battle of the Somme, considered one of the deadliest in history and probably the best-known battle of the First World War.
Reason
Another map to SVG conversion. Good source, straightforward EV, has a certain aesthetic quality as well. SVG format, so no size issues. I couldn't help this really being one of those maps where you can see only the general characteristics in thumbnail - the front lines are as bold as I thought possible without dominating the zoomed in version. Previous nomination (here) received two supports (plus me) and no opposes. Some changes were considered but I didn't feel anything needed to be changed.
Support - Good work. To nitpick, the word "RESERVE" overlaps the box for RESERVE GOUGH, but I know how awkward SVG can be for this. (Hohum@) 16:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An interesting composition and well taken, but I'm not sure it's particularly useful as an image. Having said that, I guess it shows that a painter and decorator does not necessarily use modern methods and equipment in many parts of the world, and for that reason helps with countering systematic bias towards western/modern content. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I find that unusual compositions, while interesting, are not as simple to understand or learn from. Ultra wide angles for architectural photography are often unavoidable due to logistical and geographic constraints, but I don't think that's the case for a photography of a painter and decorator where (almost) any composition is conceivable. Anyway, I haven't opposed it. I like it as a photo, I just don't know if the wide angle works to help in aiding understanding of what he's doing. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like this picture as a picture, but I would query the claim of "high EV" (I understand "EV" to mean "encyclopedic value"). IMO the encyclopedic value of this is almost zero. However, as I say, it is a nice picture to look at. 86.128.6.77 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case necessarily. There are plenty of poorly written and edited articles with poor lead images. Just because Wikipedia articles exist in a particular state, it doesn't follow that they are (or their lead image is) of high EV. We need to use our own judgement here rather than making presumptions about EV. Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WP:Featured picture criteria: "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many." I'd say that it is pretty obvious that this image contributes strongly to the article that it is illustrating. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it contributes in a decorative way (which is no bad thing since almost any picture makes an article much more inviting), but not significantly in an information-imparting way (which was what I thought "EV" meant) since it shows nothing noteworthy about technique, equipment, etc., and, in fact, it is not even clear what he is doing. It is not clear that the brush is charged with paint, or whether paint is being applied to the wall, or whether he is brushing away dust, or what. 86.160.222.107 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Painters generally have a bucket of paint or whitewash along with the brush or roller, and it is kept within reach. That paint bucket is a prominent equipment which is not visible in this picture hence its EV for painter profession is diminished. Ahirwav (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image well and truly deserves its FP status on Commons, but the cluttered composition significantly diminishes its EV for Wikipedia purposes I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no EV problem here. As I've stated above, the image contributes strongly to the article it is illustrating, and, according to the featured picture criteria, that means it has high EV. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see arguments for this image working both ways. Here's the thing for me... this is an engaging photograph of a boring (but important) task. This photo should draw a good number of people to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Although the composition is good, the image does not depict a typical house painting situation. There is neither a visible paint bucket nor a conventional ladder used by painters.Sanyambahga (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well placed and executed image. Can't speak for its placement in the article, maybe that works for it maybe it doesn't, I can't tell. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EV can't make up for awful composition, distracting background, strange warm lighting (sunset maybe though). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful image, but not of FP standard: the composition is dull, and placing the Sydney Opera House in the background makes little sense. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport if both comments are addressed. Great picture, but there needs to be some clarification on the name. Is the frog Pelophylax kl. esculentus as in the article or Rana esculenta as in the caption? Is there an officially accepted name for this frog? I also believe the plant that the frog is sitting on should be linked if it is to be mentioned, Nymphaea should do if I'm correct. Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I would stick with Edible Frog (Pelophylax kl. esculentus) as the name of the frog in the caption. I believe the synonym used here Rana esculenta is outdated. Mattximus (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean the brighter ones? Pretty sure they're just light reflecting off water drops. You can see some of that in the focused area. Could be a bit of light-coloured dirt, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2013 at 04:30:47 (UTC)
Original – Australian Paralympic swimmer Maddison Elliott in her processing picture.
Reason
High enough resolution, good quality, well focused, notable individual. Image was taken when she was 13, meaning this image will retain EV for showing her at the age she became notable.
Comment Could use a personality rights warning. As she is a minor, I would have preferred to know if consent was also provided in addition to the permission for use. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2013 at 14:09:38 (UTC)
Original – Hyles lineata (White-Lined Sphinx Moth)
Reason
This image is the first upload of the Hyles lineata to display the insect's distinctive appearance in such detail. Unique EV of all Hyles lineata images. There are supplementary angles shared on the Hyles lineata article. Let me know if I should add one to the FP, one is side view. Wikipedia is the first upload destination for this image.
Oppose. Sorry- as it's only used in a gallery, it's not really eligible for FP status. I'm also not so keen on the unnatural background, and the image quality is lacking; the bar for insect photography has been set high. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality is just superb, but I'll have to agree with Sanyambahga. The other image of the same bridge in the article doesn't distort the bridge.Nikhil(talk) 02:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support would be better if the article had more detail but I think this is good enough. Good image sharpness. --Pine✉05:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, hasn't something gone wrong with the "fogginess" at the right of the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.108.14 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2013
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2013 at 10:47:25 (UTC)
Original – The Königsstuhl, the best-known chalk cliff on the Stubbenkammer in the Jasmund National Park on the Baltic Sea island of Rügen.
Reason
I think this picture taken from Victoria's View shows the best possible perspective for this motive. It was already elected FP in German Wikipedia as well as QI and VI on Commons.
Oppose. I don't think theres nearly enough 'wow' in this photo. It's a fairly tight crop and doesn't show enough of the surroundings. I much prefer this photo taken from the same article. It's a better candidate for FP. Ðiliff«»(Talk)13:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both pictures have already been FPC in German Wikipedia. The result was 8:3 for my nomination against 3:8 for your suggestion of a "better candidate". -- Felix König✉18:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for advising. I disagree with the conclusions that they reached though, I still think the other picture is better. Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of actually depicting the subject, there is no question that the other picture is better. 86.169.185.13 (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2013 at 17:41:33 (UTC)
Original – 1782 painting commissioned by a young man named William Grant. Due to inclement weather, Stuart and Grant skated instead of doing a sitting for the painting. Stuart later painted Grant's head at the studio, and completed the remainder of the portrait from memory.
Reason
High resolution (brushstrokes, excluding sfumato techniques, are visible), and visually intriguing (composition, period clothing, foreground/background, etc) painting by Gilbert Stuart (self portrait FP), painted in 1782. This painting is important and notable because it was not only his first successfully completed full-length portrait, it brought recognition to Mr. Stuart and allowed him to open up his own studio. (According to our article, this painting was completed at Benjamin West's studio.)
Support. Proportions seem right, I'm happy to trust the source as regards colour. It could probably be a little bigger (the original is nearly two and a half metres tall), but I'm happy that it's big enough. As far as I can see, it's a great candidate. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although some parts of it look motion blurred (or perhaps aberration from the edge of the frames). However, the high resolution makes this a relatively academic point. I would have liked to see more of the foreground as it's slightly unbalanced IMO. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks fine to me. Compositionally OK although Diliff raises good points about how it could be improved. There are some blown highlights but that is pretty much unavoidable. dllu(t,c)04:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed with Adam, I regret that missing info as well. But completely fascinating and good EV. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I'm not really feeling this one. The focus seems a little off, the framing is very tight, it does seem over-saturated. Also, what's the gash on his lower back? It's definitely a very useful picture for the article, but I don't think it's quite FP-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This picture gives the impression that the upper storeys slightly overhang the lower ones. Is that the case in reality? If not then it is somewhat misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.108.14 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2013
I'm not sure it's because our eyes are stupid. In my opinion it is because, from this apparent position, the top of the building would naturally appear to be slightly narrower, due to perspective effects. Because there is no such narrowing in the picture, we assume that the building actually widens slightly, which would be a correct assumption in a real-world situation. 81.159.111.248 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that adjusting the perspective is OK when it corrects a camera artefact/limitation to create a natural-looking aspect, but when it breaks the natural perspective, and makes things appear distorted, I think it is a mistake.* However, I am not a technical expert and it is not clear to me whether this photo has been "corrected" or is simply taken from a greater distance than appears, at which distance the perspective effect would naturally be less. 86.160.217.67 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC) *Unless done deliberately to create a special effect, of course. I am talking about pictures that are supposed to faithfully document the subject.[reply]
Actually in this picture the upper storeys do overhang the lower ones by about 5 to 10 pixels. picture. It appears to be a pincushion distortion. dllu(t,c)04:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice picture with good lighting. It also provides a good level of detail and EV. Weak support because of the tight framing. --ELEKHHT07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2013 at 16:37:04 (UTC)
Original – Levi P. Morton, 22nd Vice-President of the United States.
Reason
The recent nomination of an uncropped version was rather stymied by me uploading it - but not a PNG version - literally half an hour before I flew to Hong Kong for Wikimania. This made the request to crop it rather difficult. I'm back in Edinburgh now, so can finally deal with the requests.
Oppose. I know it was probably done because of the "rule of thirds" thing, but I would strongly prefer a tighter crop on this particular image. I find the extensive blurry background on the left side of the image to be distracting without adding anything at all aesthetically. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. It's not all about the rule of thirds, but also lead room. Aesthetically, the current crop gives the impression of the puffin looking out to sea. If it were cropped, we would instead have the impression of the puffin looking at the edge of a frame- much less visually interesting. The wide crop also serves to give an excellent impression of the puffin's natural habitat; upon a small piece of land on a cliff, next to the sea. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holy mother of... support. If our photographs are getting this big, and this sharp, we might as well try for a one gigapixel image and say "take that Google" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support But as for EV, should this picture not be in the infobox instead of buried in the article? It is superior to the low resolution photograph currently there. Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wide images are often a bad idea in infoboxes; indeed, some infoboxes don't even allow you to resize. Ideally, I suppose, we'd want something like looking across the bridge from one bank for the infobox, as that'd fit best. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, however the image already found in the infobox is almost identical in proportions to the one proposed here but of inferior quality. Just a comment, support not conditional on this change. Mattximus (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is there any chance of improving Commons' large image viewer so it doesn't break on these very large images? It'd make it far easier for most of us to see and appreciate them. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality picture with beautiful light and colors, interesting details. This picture shows wonderfully the impressive interior of the mosque. Quincy2010 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - primary issues are 1) the angle and perspective are odd and 2) the sky around the sun is so blown that it is solid white with strange artifacting and it leaves the rest of the scene dark. Chris857 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the perspective and angle utilized has a depreciative effect on the image. What exactly do you mean by "blown". Blurry? Additionally, the darkened hue effect is the phenotype of this picture, and the reason I feel it could make a featured picture. Anyway, thank you for your constructive response. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HDR makes the picture look too artificial and gives moving objects a very obvious blur behind them. This perspective also isn't ideal. -- mcshadyplTC21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2013 at 17:47:28 (UTC)
Original – Poster from 1909 advertising the then-recently-opened Indianapolis Motor Speedway, an early motor vehicle racetrack.Alt1 – Tweak the borders
Reason
A fine lithographic poster from right at the start of the speedway's operation
That border was one of the dirtiest I ever dealt with. It's lightyears better than it was, but, after about five hours of working on the border alone, I decided a little dirty was acceptable. =) As you know, I use GIMP; I think Photoshop might have some automations that speed up border-fixing, so if you want to have a look, I'd appreciate it. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2013 at 00:07:15 (UTC)
Original – The console of a Mighty Wurlitzer organ. Theatre Organs, such as this one at the Alabama Theatre, took the place of an orchestra during the age of silent films. Several manufacturers made them, and many instruments exhibited a high amount of artistic beauty. Today, many theatre organs have been preserved and are used by a number of enthusiasts who keep the heritage of the instrument alive.
Reason
This high quality image adds significantly to the articles in which it appears, including the article for the Alabama Theatre. The image successfully illustrates the physical artistic beauty of its topic, the organ console, to the point in which viewers want to read the article about Theatre Organs, where the image also appears. This work is in the public domain.
Opppose Sadly, it's under the minimum size for Featured Pictures (1500x1500px) and it's rather dimly lit. Whilst a photo of the organ is certainly featureable, this isn't quite there. Adam Cuerden(talk)13:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable, and, while it has the jerky repetetiveness a lot of very early cartoons do - McCay was, I believe, one of the first animators, and tended to narrate over the films as a vaudiville act, so there's often some long pauses for when he spoke. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was disturbing. Oppose....only joking. Support. I do have a question though. In the article it says, "The paper called the film 'a marvelous arrangement of colored drawings', referring to the final explosive sequence (which McCay had hand-painted red)." Is there a reason this version is all black instead of having the original red at the end? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original was entirely black-and-white. McCay hand-painted the red onto the actual frames of the film, something he did on File:Winsor McCay, the Famous Cartoonist of the N.Y. Herald and His Moving Comics - Little Nemo (1911).webm earlier. There was (most likely) only one coloured version made, and it was made for McCay's vaudeville show. McCay's films have been poorly preserved—Canemaker gives the story in his McCay bio, and it makes it seem a miracle any of them have survived at all. At least one film has been lost entirely, and some others survive only in fragments. I assume the coloured version of Mosquito was one of the cans of film that was discovered that had to be destroyed before it spontaneously combusted, if it survived even that long. There was a live-action prologue to Mosquito that has been entirely lost as well, and not one of the original drawings have survived, either. It may even be that not all of the animated portion has survived—notice how abrupt the ending is? Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good resolution, nice and sharp, fairly interesting for an official portrait. I've had to remove a bit of dust and some hairs (this photo seems to have been taken in the late 80s). Previous nom was just short.
Comment. Another one of several recently that seems to misrepresent its subject. It appears from this picture that the coastline begins to curve quite tightly to the left, but Google Maps shows this is not the case. 86.160.212.162 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2013 at 05:13:41 (UTC)
Original – The 2013 Moore tornado as it passed through southern Oklahoma City on May 20, 2013.ALT - Cropped
Reason
A very high EV image of the 2013 Moore tornado. Freely licensed (taken by me). Not perfect technical composition but high resolution (I will say, it's really hard to focus on the minor details of composition when there's an EF5 tornado nearby).
I should probably complain about the chromatic fringing, but, screw it. It's a picture of a highly notable tornado that's freely licensed. Support original. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the general policy question, but if better pictures of a specific event exist "out there" (for example [[1]]) but not in wikicommons, should the lesser photograph still be promoted to featured article? And for the record support cropped Alt. Mattximus (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, remember we can only use free-licensed images here. If there's a better free-licensed image, that's a major problem. Now, i'm not an expert in tornado photography, but I'm going to guess that image you linked was likely taken with very high-speed film, since I wouldn't expect a tornado - by definition something made up of very fast-moving and thus fast-changing winds - to look that sharp without a very fast shutter speed. I may be wrong on that, but, if correct, this may well better depict what it would look like if you're there.
However, as I said, I'm not sure about any of that.
Now, what I can say is that the mere existence of a better photo Wikipedia can never use probably isn't a huge obstacle to FPC. Many pictures of celebrities we have at FP are great photos, but not as good as professional publicity shots, for insance. Adam Cuerden(talk)23:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you said for the most part but with one note: How a tornado looks in a photograph can vary greatly based upon where the photographer is in relation to the tornado, overall storm, and lighting (the sun), as well as the overall structure of the storm and tornado. In this instance I was located to the southeast of the tornado. The reason the tornado is less well defined as in the other photograph is because by this point in its life cycle (about 5-10 minutes later than the other photo) rain had started to wrap around the tornado (examples for comparison). Within five minutes of my photo the tornado was hardly visible through the rain. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)00:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel the extra road shifts focus away from the tornado and makes it feel more distant from the photographer. But I didn't oppose the original, so the original can still count my !vote as a support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either version, but I will note that the tornado was distant from me...it was still a little over 2.5 miles (4.0 km) away from me, but it was over 1 mile (1.6 km) wide. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am horribly disappointed in this photo. There's no restoration needed, so all I can do is Support, instead of grabbing it as a restoration project. ;) Adam Cuerden(talk)17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2013 at 10:27:55 (UTC)
Original – The House of the Estates is a neo-Renaissance building in Helsinki designed by the architect Karl Gustav Nyström. It was built in 1891 to house the three commoner estates of the four Finish Estates of the Realm. It is now used as a venue for governmental meetings.
Reason
A very high resolution and good quality picture of a superb Neo-Renaissance building in Helsinki. The best depiction available in Wikimedia, I believe
Support although a part of me would like a bit on each side, but I guess that's just because the shape isn't quite usual. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 15:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an architectural work, designed by an architect, so US FOP applies. Furthermore, architecture is only protected by US copyright since 1990, while this building was designed and completed prior to that. --ELEKHHT04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does that extend to a building in Paris though? If copyright status is OK (and I hope that it is), I'm afraid that I'm going to oppose as the EV isn't strong here - from having visited this building, it's key features are that it's really, really big, and that its the centrepiece of the entire La Défense precinct. This image doesn't illustrate either point well as the fountains dominate the composition. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can be hosted on en.wiki, but you should not use it if you're in France. Note that the deletion request has been now withdrawn. Otherwise agree with your critique about limited EV. --ELEKHHT01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaks to a wider issue. Please bring it to the village pump.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Elekhh: Why do you believe that this can be hosted on enwp? Do you have a link to a discussion which concluded that we ignore FOP laws? J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, we observe FOP laws. But unlike Commons, which requires a free license both for the US and the country of origin of the photography, en.wiki does not have such a policy, and per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights "Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law" and "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." It is current practice to host images on en.wiki if they are compliant with our policy but not with the more stringent policy of Commons. There is also a specific tag on the file warning users that "This file will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2059 and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons until that date, as Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States". --ELEKHHT09:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is horrible inconsistency, though. We have a featured picture of the Angel of the North- a copyrighted statue which may be freely photographed in the UK, where it stands, but not in the US. We can't have it both ways. Either we observe only US law (and so have no free images of statues, and only of buildings) or we observe local laws. Commons does the latter. Enwp has no clear consensus on which we're doing. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is consistent in all this is that images with some copyright restrictions can be accepted if no more free alternative is possible and it is essential for supporting the educational scope of the article. Hence the over 300K images with non-free use rationale. The image you linked to does not infringe US law as it does not claim to be free in the US (it is tagged stating that it may not be free in the US) and its use on Wikipedia is non-commercial. What is inconsistent with is Wikipedia's aim of only hosting free images. But I think not showing it would only undermine the educational aim, and would be silly given that such images are all over the web.
In the case of 20th century architecture in France, other Wikipedias also reached a consensus that such images shall be locally hosted. The de.wiki hosts images of the Grande Arche as free under German FOP law while fr.wiki hosts images of the Arche based on community consensus to exempt such images from their free content policy. --ELEKHHT06:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What is consistent in all this is that images with some copyright restrictions can be accepted if no more free alternative is possible and it is essential for supporting the educational scope of the article." That's what the NFCC are all about. The image you linked to does not infringe US law as it does not claim to be free in the US (it is tagged stating that it may not be free in the US) and its use on Wikipedia is non-commercial." Sure, we can use non-free images, but we should not be listing these non-free images as "free" and promoting them to FP status. That's the problem. We as a project need to work out what we're doing here, because right now, it's a free-for-all. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is "free-for-all". But we have to deal with the reality of inconsistencies between various national copyright laws, which means that there will often be countries in which some images are not free for commercial use. This Grande Arche image is perfectly free in the US, UK, Australia, India, China, Germany, Brazil and many more countries that do have Freedom of Panorama provisions for images of architecture. I don't see why it should not be eligible for FP. If you wish to raise the question of FP eligibility of all 20th century sculptures, I think that discussion belongs elsewhere. --ELEKHHT22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, as this discussion is now about a wider issue than just this candidate, perhaps discussion could be moved to WP:VP/P (Village pump/policy)? For the record, if this is free under US FOP laws, current consensus is that it is free enough. If we disagree with this consensus, a doomed FPC nom is not the place to discuss it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"For the record, if this is free under US FOP laws, current consensus is that it is free enough." How sure are you of that? What about those images not free under US FOP laws but which are free in their country of origin, like the images at Angel of the North? That's my point. We seem to have an inconsistency here- that's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to change policy, I'm just pointing out that we don't seem to have a policy. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Elekhh's claim that this image "can be hosted on en.wiki" is without foundation. Our policies on this matter, unlike the policies on Commons, are inconsistent and/or absent. If you wish to refute my claim, please provide a link to a policy page which makes the English Wikipedia's stance on FOP clear. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already did (in that collapsed part), you just need to chill down and read. Also for civility's sake please try avoid offending me by making unsubstantiated claims. I suggest we stop this discussion here, take a break, and re-convene at a more appropriate forum (village pump, FPC talk page), as suggested earlier. --ELEKHHT13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so keen to have this argument here? I could offer a response, but that's just going to lead to this thread being collapsed as well. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]