Oppose It doesn't meet our current size requirements (1500px on each side) and more than half the image isn't even the butterfly, so if you cropped it it would be even smaller. Sorry, just too small and not sharp enough. — raekyt11:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oops, sorry about that. Corrected the category. Kallidaimaniac
Oppose Although I can appreciated the difficulty of capturing an image of a dragonfly with a camera, since they're nearly impossible even to catch with a insect net, lol. It's just not sharp enough to warrant FP status IMO. It's also being used essentially in a gallery, which is against criteria. The article is over-illustrated for a stub, so adding this image isn't adding any value to the encyclopedia. An article that size would do fine with 2 images, one for male and one for female, and since the wings are not in focus, a VERY key diagnostic for ID in Odonata, then this is a worse EV than File:Trithemis_aurora_by_kadavoor.JPG which the wings are more in focus. — raekyt11:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not identified (Properly identify the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable.); not used in any article (The image should be used in one or more articles.). JKadavoorJee06:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it did meet those criteria, it would have almost no chance of passing due to the technical flaws in it's lighting, that part of the flower is cropped off, and not showing any vegetation of the plant. So I move to Speedy Close — raekyt08:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Too little of this picture is in focus. The edge of the left (from the top petal) petal, along with the bottom in the right corner and the one above so all fall out of focus (some more than others) towards the ends of the leaves. In the background is the stem, which shouldn't necessarily be in focus, would be a better detail to have than to not have. The focus of the photo seems to be less the flower and more the pollination tendrils sprouting from the center, a bottommost of which falls out of focus similarly to the petals of the flower. The blackground of the photograph is very distracting because of several marks on the wall or other material of which it consists (crop, blend). Where was this picture taken? There is a good few inches of unnecessary space to the left of the flower. Finally, the uppermost petal is cut off at the top (cropping issue, may I presume?) and should be fixed if possible. ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmm, I'm not sure what to say about this one. The photo itself is actually very good (albeit a little overly contrasty), but for a traditional Aboriginal Australian instrument, it doesn't really 'fit' as one of the lead images in the article. It's not just that the player is Spanish rather than Aboriginal, but also because the instrument itself looks like a cheap, touristy didgeridoo. I guess it could illustrate the way the instrument has transcended traditional use (as it has), but I think I'd prefer a more traditional setting for a featured picture of it. Ðiliff«»(Talk)09:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a indigenous Australian instrument, and as such an image like that would be INFINITELY better EV than, to be very politically incorrect, a dirty hippy in Spain would be. So I'd oppose on EV grounds. — raekyt07:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence I agree with Diliff; while technically this photo is good, the EV of a white guy playing a didgeridoo in Spain seems limited (though it's certainly not without value). The appropriation of Indigenous Australian culture by non-Indigenous people is a perennial hot issue, though at least in this case its unlikely that the Spanish guy was taking business from an Indigenous Australian didgeridoo player! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article would need to talk about something like that, which it doesn't, just mention that some very off-the-beaten-path music types use it... It's not traditional, looks like a cheap $30 one you can buy online, and a white Spanish guy playing it... It's far from ideal to illustrate the article. — raekyt10:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is he auditioning for a part in a 1980s Milk Tray advert? It isn't IMO a particularly flattering photograph and I'd never guess that he was a musician. While an FP of a performer doesn't have to show them performing, it does help. For example, this photo has much higher EV with the Hawaiian shirt, shell necklace and guitar. I wonder if we can get hold of it instead? -- Colin°Talk21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got the shot from the photographer, not the subject. I thought I may get some opposes like this, but I thought the photo deserved a chance :) J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was half expecting you to reply that the "Milk Tray Man" was actually part of his act with "Weird Al" Yankovic, and that the EV was therefore enormously high to those "in the know" :-) I wonder if these photographs have higher EV as representative of the work of the photographer than of the subject? Colin°Talk23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's actually a very visually interesting portrait with good technicals... We don't need a picture of a person for their biography to be them doing what they're known for.. it's a biography about them, not an article about only one aspect of their life. So that you can't figure out he's an artist from this photograph, so what? — raekyt07:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The lighting is done well, notably the left side of his face, and the other parts are in generous detail. But I must say, is the subject of this picture Jim West or Jim West's shirt? ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Something about this image just scream's that someone has tinkered far to much with color saturation, making it less likely that these are anywhere near true colors for this plant... — raekyt11:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo is great, but thanks to that witch Mother Nature he blends into the background quite a bit. But it's not horrible, and it couldn't be fixed, so who cares. I like the blood near his paws, the color is brought out nicely, but there's some motion blur around his face. Quite odd because his body & tail are all in great focus and detail, but as soon as you look into his head and facial area it begins to blur. I don't know how that happened, maybe he began to turn his head just as the picture was taken. Or maybe I'm crazy. Someone clear this up. ---Saw1998 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't have any problem with the slight motion blur. I don't believe that the problem is fixable, so why worry about it? Dusty77702:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the orientation of the crosses, it seems not. Would be rather poor form to put them on in the wrong direction in relation to the front of the building. It appears to be a shot of the side of the building. This would be an image from the front, sort of. If you google the church there's plenty of different angles and this is clearly not the front. — raekyt11:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose being a cast it's EV is lower in Sue (dinosaur). According to the article "The museum made a cast of the skull, and altered this cast to remove the distortions, thus approximating what the original undistorted skull may have looked like." So good EV would be showing an angle in comparison with say File:Sue skull.jpg to show those distortions and used in the article approprately. It's use in all three articles seems to be just tacked on, and adds little or nothing, possibly detracting from the article due to over-illustration. A more side-on shot like File:Tyrannosaurus Rex Holotype.jpg for Tyrannosauridae & Tyrannosaurus has signifigantly more EV than this angle of just the skull. — raekyt08:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 16:32:23 (UTC)
Original – A yak on the hillside above Yamdrok Lake, Tibet.
Reason
Encyclopaedic depiction of the yak and its interaction with people. I originally found and uploaded this from flickr before the higher res was provided, so I'll allow myself to move this ahead a little.
It say's unknown photographer/source? There is no copyright in Afghanistan, so {{PD-Afghanistan}}? Where is the source on Unesco's website with the copyright statement? I can't find the image on there... — raekyt07:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it's unrestricted due to PD-Afghanistan... but I donno.. seems strange. I don't think they're the photographers of all those different images. — raekyt17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 14:50:07 (UTC)
Original – The University of Coimbra is a Portuguese public university that was established in 1290, one of the oldest in continuous operation in the world. The picture shows the courtyard of the university, which was a former royal palace.Alternative
Reason
Detailed and good quality photograph of the University of Coimbra (probably the best available in Wikipedia) adding to various articles. Notice that no downsample was made with the purpose of apparently imprve sharpness (which is more or less common in Wikipedia).
Comment In this case, it seems like the light was good, but yet again, the image seems underexposed. I suspect the surreal sky colours would be mitigated by raising the exposure. The sky should not be the focus of the image. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be off topic, but I'd like to say that 2/3 of data from a picture are actually made up from interpolation of RAW data. So downsampling should be perfectly fine in most cases since we mainly loose imaginary data (Have no proof, just assumptions). Now about the pic itself, the lighting is a bit dull, and that's a strange projection here we have, with that curved ground. I like playing with projection in such ways, but don't think they fit the topic well (architecture) in the context of an encyclopedia. You should try General Panini, to minimize the horizontal distortion. I have found it to rescue me well in similar cases. - Blieusong (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed after that horizontal FOV is 92°. Since that the extreme lower end of a ultra wide angle (but still standard) lens, you could even switch to rectilinear IMO and still keep the stretching in the corners under control. - Blieusong (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, Benh. I have done what you suggested and the perspective is indeed better. The price to pay is the flag on top of the tower! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why you went for equirectangular and looking slightly upward... sorry then (a reason I tend to take ridiculously huge margins now in such cases ;) ). Maybe you can keep the flag and fill hole with careful cloning? It's only sky to fill (easy as far as I can tell). - Blieusong (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I mentioned lighting is a bit dull, I also tried to improve things a bit. Free for you to have a look (but don't use it, it was quickly made from jpeg). [1] - Blieusong (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well-composed shot of the building with its surrounding environs, which gives the viewer a sense of place. This was one of the finalists in the Wiki Loves Monuments competition for the U.S (disclosure: I was one of the judges). Yes, there's a little blown-out area on the dome, but I don't think it's enough to disqualify the image.
Oppose Excessive noise, especially on the two pillars closest to camera. I'm not a big fan of the composition - would prefer this to be taken dead centre rather that off to the side. Also the foreground is very dark. Finally the blown dome is enough coupled with the other three reasons for me to oppose... gazhiley09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same picture? High Quality? It's all blurred and fuzzy?! Please make sure you look at more than just the thumbnail or the first image - please click the view at full resolution link... gazhiley10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 22:42:17 (UTC)
Original – Rubens' c.1638 version of The Judgment of Paris is among his last work
Reason
High resolution, notable painting and artist. This is a bit more striking, in my opinion, than the 1636 version (which can nonetheless be included as an alt)
Oppose for a painting that's over 9 feet long, I think this image is VASTLY too small to represent it as a featured picture. — raekyt05:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As 1) the crop is too tight 2) the side-on angle is uninteresting and 3) the only article this is in doesn't mention the gender split of the personnel assigned to this duty (is it actually unusual in the Swedish military? Australia's Federation Guard includes many women, and the main reason that this is unusual internationally is that ceremonial guard duties are typically undertaken by infantry units in which women are in most cases not permitted to serve). As a war nerd, this photo of a female Swedish palace guard has stronger EV as it more clearly depicts her, and she's - very unusually for guard roles - equipped with a radio which suggests that she's actually guarding the building and isn't there for ceremonial purposes only. The technical quality of that photo isn't great though, and the side-on angle is also dull. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't find any problem with the crop or angle. I personally prefer a half body portrait than a full body as referenced by Nick. JKadavoorJee16:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel the EV is greatly reduced by a side shot, it's illustrating the guard, so a front shot showing the full uniform would be A LOT better EV. The side shot is only marginal, and not ideal for illustrating this. — raekyt06:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I largely agree with Raeky: the crop is awkward; you don't generally see crops at knee level; the convention is generally to put the bottom either from about shoulder height to a little below the waist (when you want to get in the bottom of a jacket or the like), or to show the full person. I don't really mind the side view, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In spite of some technical defficiencies (unsharp, blown highlights in the flames), this is an amazing sight. As the image description says, it's bigger than it looks... The other image in the article shows just how big it really is. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saw a documentary on this site a few years back - it's an amazing spectacle... This picture does it justice, and is more than eye catching... gazhiley10:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me it looks as big as it shows in Google Maps (roughly size of two basketball court if I'm right). Person on the left helps giving scale. But impressive despite all the flaws listed by Diliff. Caption could be improved ("It's bigger than it looks" isn't very encyclopedic ;) ). - Blieusong (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I updated the description of the image (just using article material) and added my estimation of the field of view (which I believe to be fairly accurate based on own experience and map). - Blieusong (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highly artistic shot that is eye-catching, convays information about the artist's persona, and is framed with clarity, appropriate dimentions and ambient levels to a superb effect.
Comment: The source is dead, meaning the licensing is hard to verify. Who precisely am I looking at here? The article says that the band had two members. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image with info can be found at http://www.redthreat.us/2008/05/02/kickoff/. It is the picture of the lead singer by the same name (Dandilion Wind Opaine is her full name). Although there are other members of the band she's the frontman and is shown on her own on the album covers and music videos and also performs front stage live. Robo37 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus looks a little soft around the ears but that may be just the hair, otherwise looks like a decent image and it looks like does a good job of capturing the subject. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 10:10:37 (UTC)
Edit 1 - Uniform Background
Reason
It is of a high technical quality. Good contrast, sharp, accurate exposure. Good composition with no distractions. It is a unique image as it is extremely difficult to take a picture of this personality. In fact, there are no recent pictures of him that come close to this quality, copyrighted or otherwise. It is the best picture of Ali Sistani on the web or in print. Period.
Oppose Have to disagree, the wrinkled white bed sheet as a background and very bland dull lighting does not make this a good portrait. That combined with the sinister stare he's giving... not my opinion of a FP quality image. It also doesn't meet our minimum size requirements on any axis, so Speedy Close. — raekyt05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Low res according to the requirements but when we raised the limit, we had mentioned that exceptions could be made for rare/historical images. --Muhammad(talk)12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions can be made for rare photos. This is the best quality photo I have seen on the internet or otherwise. Since he is very well protected, under normal circumstances, photographers would not even be allowed near him with a camera. --Muhammad(talk)18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a look at the discussion where several people who supported mentioned exceptions could be made for difficult images. The current criteria mention Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed. This clearly meets the criteria --Muhammad(talk)00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raeky: I think the wrinkled bed sheet gives the photo character as it displays the reality of his simple life in the suburbs of Najaf. The lighting in my opinion is realistic. If you think creative lighting makes for a good people encyclopedic photo, i beg to differ. I feel, the more realistic the lighting, the more encyclopedic, at least for people. Landscapes/effects are better-of with creative lighting. As far as the size is concerned, anyone here who has ever printed digital photos would know that in a A4 size print, a photo with 1500 px dimension would look no different from a picture with a 1000 px width. Do also note that a better picture is currently practically impossible. If you feel this cannot be the case, try to appeal to the larger wikipedia community for one. Hence, just because of the size, it would be cruel not to feature this very rare photo. If you wish to understand why I call this a rare photo, have a look at [[2]] and see how many of them even have a photo available, let alone, one of this quality. As to 'sinister stare', i believe thats your subjective opinion and cannot be a base for opposing.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a passport photograph. The eyes aren't in focus and the sheeting material behind him is distracting. The edit alt is poor in terms of the cutout and the lifting the shadows was undesirable: it makes his black cloak grey. For the record, I agree with Muhammad wrt an exception to the size criterion: just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't make it a realistic possibility. Colin°Talk09:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis of assuming it is a passport photograph? And if it is, why is that a reason for opposing? I think the eyes are in focus. In my opinion the eyes make the photo look alive, and is one of the strongest aspect of this photo.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware on FPC's policy on anonymous IP editors for nomination pages... You may want to use an account, since this is your first edit on wikipedia it make's your involvement here a bit suspicious, or did you just forget to login? The reason is clearly stated, it looks like a passport photograph. Take a look at other featured picture portraits, they all have FAR better quality and interest than this photograph. Sure he may be hard to photograph, maybe near impossible to photograph, he's still alive so it's still POSSIBLE. I really can't see the case that a living person is so infinitesimally hard to photograph that we have to make exceptions like this, not only is it too small per our standards, it's just very poor snapshotty quality. — raekyt01:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low lighting on both, the original has a horrible background and the edit has the previously mentioned cutout issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel this picture is of very high EV simply because none other is available or will be available unless the political situation changes drastically in Iraq. As far as EV goes there are very high chances that this is the best picture that will be available of this personality. hasin 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Very impressive... and not just sharpness, but how it is obviously a well thought shot (framing, perspective lines, leveling, lighting). - Blieusong (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: good EV. I'm with Milburn on the caption; I just don't think the factors are big enough to swing this to an oppose. We're using this image for its subject, not as an image itself; for that reason, the caption is (a bit) distracting to the scene. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was from a short-lived period of relative racial equality after the American Civil War, which, unfortunately, led to such practices as white-only primaries, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and other attempts to restrict the rights of Americans of colour to vote. Thought we should have as much material as possible for Black History Month, and this is a little-known but important part of United States history. I'd like to have all of February devoted to the subject. It's not like it's not an extremely varied field in its own right.
Anyway, back to the picture. Ironically, all these men were Republicans. The parties have actually switched sides on quite a lot of issues since the 1800s; it's somewhat weird to see the party that first elected blacks be the one that currently has a scandal where Florida's former Republican governor is saying they have given up any hope of attracting black votes, so are trying to suppress the black vote. But, let's not get too political.
Reason
It shows an interesting part of U.S. History that has been all but forgotten.
Technically, it's a lithograph. Lithographs create shading by a semi-random process of etching stone with acid: the longer acid is on the stone, the more and deeper pits form. When you're done etching it, the pits hold ink, which can be transferred to paper. The efffect does look a little like pencil sketching, but pencil sketching gets that look from paper grain, whereas lithographs come down to the grain of the rock. =) Adam Cuerden(talk)15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support So long as the license on File:First colored senator and reps.png matches the license on this image (i.e. getting rid of the share-alike clause), and and probably a PNG of this restoration version (looks like paper was whitened more) is uploaded over the linked image and proper links in the images to indicate the PNG->JPEG versions. Coming out of retirement? — raekyt05:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. Anyway, the PNG is fixed. Well, insofar as it can be fixed when Wikipedia can make TIFF support from scratch, but can't make the most popular lossless format work for large sizes, despite apparently having had working fixes for some time. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's Senates outside of the United States. While it's obvious in context that it's referring to the United States, for FPC, it's helpful to internationalise it a little, to give context.Adam Cuerden(talk)01:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you were after, the subtitle makes it clear. Using the British English spelling of "colour" isn't appropriate for this image. Yomanganitalk01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: clear EV, seems as good a representation as any. Why the fuss over the name of the nomination? It's just to give an idea of the subject matter. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A complete set of images for an interesting artist in the Arts and Crafts movement, and a set of notable poems.
Articles in which this image appears
All:William Edward Frank Britten; Individuals: As linked in gallery (above), also: The Garden at Somersby Rectory is used in Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and note Sleeping Beauty's link redirects to The Day-Dream, the title of the expanded version of the poem. There's a few other uses as well, for instance, the Mariana illustration is used in Measure for Measure, and Sleeping Beauty is used in the fairy-tale's page, Sleeping Beauty.
Notes
Due to need for consistency in a much larger set, the current FP, File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg - is no longer used (well, not much). Also, there's minor duplication between illustrative images in William Britten - this is in order to have the gallery in book order, without gaps, while still having an example of his works.
Well, they're photogravures, but that's basically a photographic reproduction technique that can be used on anything you can photograph. Either charcoal or graphite sticks would be my guess for the original art being photographed, which works really well with the reproduction method. -Adam.
Comment PNG versions, could you upload PNG versions for a lossless version if someone else wants to use or edit them? Are the original versions uploaded too? — raekyt06:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should be PNG versions linked for all, I'm not really sure why you think there aren't. Did I miss one? I have the originals, but uploading these was a hideous 12-hour process; so I skipped it. I'll start that now. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The original scans are all uploaded, and are linked, although a few of the uploads turned out to have been done years ago to a bad filename, or I typo'd the name while uploading, so there's a few redlinks until after the requested file moves happen. But everything should be there. Adam Cuerden(talk)11:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fuck me. Why do they have a tag if you have to have a second tag as well? That's incredibly stupid and annoying, and means editing 30+ pages. >=/ Adam Cuerden(talk)16:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed. But I swear: Between the Upload Wizard and its stupidities, uploading another 22 files just to document this, 10 at the request of someone on here, I have literally spent about 18 hours just trying to give these to Wikipedia. Surely there has to be a better way? Adam Cuerden(talk)16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, sorry if I'm a little annoyed (althoguh I'm actually laughing a bit as well) but this has literally taken about 18 hours to deal with all of this, and at least half of that is down to problems with the upload interface and templates over at Commons. Hopefully, that finishes the work on this set. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very impressive view and the tour boats are tiny! The sky has some evenness problems and a bit of rough patching in the top-right. It would be nice if that could be fixed but I'm prepared to overlook that considering the scene. Colin°Talk20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now (but thanks for the nomination). Besides the problems with the sky, I'm not convinced by its EV in the Tasman Lake article. It is not integrated with the text of the article, which seems either over-illustrated or too short. --Avenue (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak EV and artificial looking sky. Even assuming good faith that it is the natural color, a straight up gradient sky doesn't look good. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 09:11:29 (UTC)
Original – The Green-Meldrim House in Savannah, Georgia in 1864, when it served as General Sherman's headquarters during his March to the Sea, a march which ended because he couldn't get the sea to catch on fire. The medium-tone paper with black and white ink appears to be Waud's general way of doing things.
Reason
A fine bit of on-the-spot reporting, by a notable artist. Only historical image for the Green-Meldrim House article, which seems valuable.
By the way, the weird title is because that's what it's called in Waud's notes on it:
Minor comment - it isn't called that in his notes - the placement of "Savannah Ga" into that position in the title seems to been sloppy work by the LoC, as does the full stop after "Chas" (if they wanted to use up their excess full stops it would be better to place one after "Gen" where it would belong). Yomanganitalk00:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: sorry Adam, I'm unconvinced on this one. It's just that the illustration isn't particularly enlightening. Essentially for the image isn't exciting/doesn't draw the reader in as an image. So this puts more of a focus on EV, though, of course, "signficiant contribution" would be required anyway. So looking at what the image shows, if I was asked to describe it, it just looks like a room with a tiled floor and some fairly large pot plants. So I'm not sure what else the reader is supposed to "take away" from the image to aid his or her understanding of the topic. I think it has more potential at William Waud, since the CIvil War was his standout topic, but the article is currently bit underdeveloped - and the contribution of the image not discussed particularly. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Top left is not optimal, and this could have been taken at a better time of day. But wow, I've never seen a place like this before. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I like the colors on this and the EV is good, but I see something that looks like a strange blurry outline directly above the rock formations near the top of the photo. Is that a compression artifact? --Pine✉00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Top far left is totally blown out and just to the right of that is a greenish spot that looks like either a compression artifact or some sort of reflection, in either case it's distracting but only really noticeable if you're looking closely at that section of the image. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support while this photo could be better technically I think it's good enough for now. We can do a D&R later if we get something better. The photo's subject is impressive. --Pine✉09:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the short side it is only about 1000 high, but on the long side it is about 3800 wide and I view this as an acceptable tradeoff. --Pine✉00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't check every inch of this image for defects but in my random checks it looks good. Size is great and EV is adequate. --Pine✉00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This one was on my list to nominate at some point anyway. As for defects, I think it's pretty clean. I haven't seen any. I took the photo on a tripod so any parallax problems should be minimised by this. Ðiliff«»(Talk)09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow (composition and light) and mostly certain it comes with EV. Would probably serve the article well to move this picture up a little. - Blieusong (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice angle and good size. I agree with KOH that this could be clearer but I think this is good enough for now. We can do a D&R later if we get something better. --Pine✉00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Surprised by the nomination as it's one of the smaller ponds in the Lake District, but I suppose it's as valid as any other subject. As for the haze, it should be fairly trivial to adjust the black level to reduce it and I'll try to do that tonight, but haze is a natural phenomenon and I don't think it's realistic to expect every landscape to be crystal clear, devoid of any shadows etc. They still need to be presented realistically. Ðiliff«»(Talk)09:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Way under our usual size requirements, bearing in mind it isn't a historical photograph. Also I have some concerns that, particularly for FPs, there might be some non-copyright protection here about privacy. Not my area of expertise. Having said that, the size issue is really significant. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: too small, poorly lit, her feet are cut off which is a big problem because her shoes are probably part of her costume. If the intent here is shock value, note that shocking is quite compatible with artistic quality; see the FP Indecency. Chick Bowen23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Muhammad Mahdi Karim has hidden the image, saying that "FPC should be SFW [safe for work]". Is that the case? I have to say I see no reason why it should be different to other parts of the encyclopedia. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's correct. Refer to WP:UNCENSORED. If you choose to view a potentially unsafe article that's your business and he's not arguing the article should be censored or the image deleted, or that is unfeatureable due to its nature. It's just that it shouldn't be splashed around common areas of the encyclopaedia like this where people are not expecting to view potentially offensive material, much as it wouldn't be placed on the mainpage. Thus it is a valid nomination, but it is appropriate to hide it to allow users the option of whether to view it or not depending on their circumstances and sensibilities. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That we can't handle this sensibly, and have to renominate, is a total waste of everyone's time, as this should have been promoted already. When there isn't a single oppose, and 5 supports, it should be promoted, end of sentence. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle, and would support speedy promotion, in agreement with Adam above. The only reason to be draconian about the end-date is if someone seems to be deliberately trying to game it somehow, which is hardly the case with a unanimous nomination like that one. Chick Bowen23:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm, not sure that I like the composition, as it's clearly taken at an angle (trees in the background provide vertical reference). I think I'd have preferred that the photo show the true angle that the plant is growing at. Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both the immediate an far background is incredibly busy with the leaves and the green which is only accentuated by the close crop. The up/down perspective doesn't help either in my opinion. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo illustrates the beaching of a wooden fishing ship built in 1935 at the Danish fishing village Vorupør at the West coast of Denmark. One of the few places in Denmark, where boats are still beached. The village is situated in Thy Nationalpark, with its characteristic sand dunes shown in the background. The dark clouds and light are representative of November conditions in the area. An attempt has been made to capture the light in a manner reminiscent of the style used by the Skagen Painters.
I follow it as far as the photo adresses several topics, beaching, Vorupør, Thy district, and Thy national park. Of these beaching is probably the topic with the most EV? The photo was originally used in beaching (nautical), which had no illustrations, but I replaced it a few days ago with another photo from the same series of photos, showing two beached ships and with an angle of view showing more of the littoral environment. Maybe that photo has a little more EV and focuses more on a specific topic, giving a clearer message. Is that a better candidate? --Slaunger (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EV is low my opinion. The photo would have better EV in the article beaching. The other photo in the Nørre Vorupør article has better EV although technically it has more problems so I would oppose that also. --Pine✉10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy foreground, a few visual issues such as blown highlights on the boat (unavoidable I know but still distracting) and what appears to be soft focus towards the very top of the lighthouse. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dark sections on the right and especially on the left ruin it for me. The one on the right could probably be compensated for in Photoshop (although that might be a controversial modification of the original) but the one on the left is just so dark. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You're not going to get better lighting than at sunrise/sunset for rock formations like this. I don't mind the shadows that much. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose we already have an FP in this article and there are several photos in the article. The technical quality seems decent but not great. Overall I'm not convinced that this is worthy of FP. --Pine✉10:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a great picture but I think the EV is poor. According to the article they are large muscled beef cows that are almost pure white. So I think this and this are better pictures in that regard. -- Colin°Talk16:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose I love the memorial, but the angle isn't that great (a head on view would be better), there is quite a bit of noise throughout the picture, and the flash lighting isn't as appealing as sunlight. Dusty77716:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and suggest speedy close There seemed to be a strong consensus to not promote this image last time, and it still suffers from unfixable problems with composition (the base being cut off) and lighting. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to a speedy close, given that the image was pretty well discussed last time, including adjustments that could be made through editing. Having looked through the various images, I find most of them suffer from the sculpture's height, which causes an exaggerated perspective and a lot of sky. The best approach is probably this one, from further back, though that is obviously too small. I haven't been there since I was a small child and am basing this on the photographs, but I get the sense there's a bit of a rise on the other side of the grassy area they use for military reviews. A photo from up there, with a longer lens, would work pretty well. This is a much-visited site, so I'd think we could get a decent picture at some point. Chick Bowen22:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be blatant copyright violation from http://www.roza.kg It's the main image used on that website, there's many image galleries on it, and press releases. VERY unlikely the uploader is the photographer. Nominating it for speedy deletion. — raekyt17:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons above. Also, as far as I could determine from all discussions prior to the Olympics, we're not actually allowed to use any photos taken within the Olympic venues as per the ticket's 'conditions of entry' because the licence implies the ability to use the photos commercially, which LOCOG prohibits. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that discussion invalidates what I was saying above. Just because we could (in theory) use the image without breaking the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, it doesn't mean we couldn't be sued for using the image. I see this analogy as appropriate: If someone steals a bike and sell it to you, you're still liable as you're purchased stolen goods. Likewise, if we use an image that was distributed illegally by someone, we are potentially still implicated. Even if this isn't the case and we're not liable, I don't think we should happily re-use the images knowing that they are being distributed 'illegally'. Ðiliff«»(Talk)18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure.. have we? Usually museums have restrictions on photography using tripods (which they claim is a health and safety issue but which seems to target those who want to take professional quality images). Hmm, well I've looked at a few of the major British Museums' policies and indeed some of them do specifically prohibit commercial photography, and others simply ask for notification in advance. So I wonder on what basis (legal or otherwise) we accept images under licences which are at odds with the museum policies. Is it, as per above, a case where we can't be held responsible for breaches of the law that contributors make? Sounds morally ambiguous to me, even though I'm sympathetic to notion of the collections being fully available to the public. Ðiliff«»(Talk)15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to pile on so I won't frame this as an oppose but the above EV consideration of whether a featured picture of a runner has to show him running aside, I can't help but makes me think that the full potential of a picture of him is not being utilized, he's been cut off at the knees, both literally and idiomatically. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose having the sun directly overhead, or shooting this from a different angle, might give better lighting and EV. --Pine✉09:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think an angle from above or more to the side of the ship would give a better view of the features of the ship and its proportions. --Pine✉00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a good quality photo with solid EV, but I agree that a more side-on angle would have been much superior and the exposure does seem a bit off. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - having considered this, I think the view would be improved by being from the side, but not by much. I'm not sure about "much" superior, but a bit. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The slight underexposure is not a big issue, the angle of the boat is a bigger but not huge issue, both together make me have to oppose this. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might argue that the focus is a little off only at the leftmost part, and that's not the important part in the picture. Tomer T (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above mentioned focus issues and agreeing that even though you have to pick a point somewhere to have the edge of frame and that's going to cut out part of the bridge, the composition looks unappealing on the right side because of where it was cut off. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:39:56 (UTC)
Original – Lea Rowing Club in Tottenham, London, photographed from the pedestrian bridge over the Lea Navigation canal on a Saturday morning: groups setting up boats on cradles outside the boathouse, and disembarking after a practice session. The main boat house is the white structure, with boat storage at ground level and the rowing club bar upstairs, with access via the outside staircase. The brick building in the foreground is also a boathouse used by the same rowing club.
Reason
I'm nominating this as an image showing the atmosphere and the range of social and sporting activity at a small rowing club: it's not to show boats or boat houses which are well represented on Wikimedia, and the rowing club itself is not noteworthy. This is chosen from many shots because it shows so many different things happening, like those Victorian conversation piece paintings, as well as a decent stretch of the water to give an idea of the setting. I'm a bit worried about the lighting, bright sunshine and deep shadows, but I guess I'll soon find out what people think about that - I prefer it not manipulated to lighten the shadows, although that would make the detail clearer.
Oppose The atmosphere of the image is nice, and I think that the lighting etc is fine, however I think the composition is too tight on the bottom, left and right. In other words, too many things feel chopped off. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I feel really drawn in. I'm not an expert on identifying perspective problems, for example, but the technicals seem good. It's well framed and from a nice angle, in my opinion. Pity about the scaffolding though. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Partly as per Pine, but mainly as each spire is leaning towards the centre rather than verticle. Most noticible with the tallest spire which looks like one strong gust of wind and it'll fall off... gazhiley13:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, 'An optical trick known as forced perspective makes the Castle appear even larger than it actually is. As it becomes taller, its proportions get smaller. For example, using this method, the top spire of the Castle is actually close to half of the size it "appears." ' Not sure if the mentioned leaning is actually part of the architectural design, and how perspective should be presented in such a case. --125.25.5.90 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though there don't seem to be any in the article, I have to imagine that a better photograph of this is possible. That's not to say that this is bad but for something like the Cinderella Castle that is probably photographed a million times a year, the bar should be incredibly high and this just doesn't meet it. Cat-fivetc ---- 12:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: in a set, my understanding is that one image is usually treated as primary (for example, only one image ends up in POTD). In this case that would also make it easier to judge. Are we interested in the engraving and the process that led up to it, or the sketch and its afterlife? Chick Bowen23:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's usually decided by Howcheng, I think. The engraving is used in more locations, though whether this is justified could, perhaps, be argued. Adam Cuerden(talk)00:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support final version only, which seems more visually appealing. While I love drawing, the promotion of final image and sketch is rather non-standard, the existing link to the sketch in the file description would suffice IMO. Brandmeistertalk13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an excellent photo, very well composed, and decidedly eye-catching. However, I'm not sure if it adds any actual encyclopedic value: It doesn't show the whole instrument, it doesn't show the bow from an angle that'd demonstrate technique, and the things that make it artistic maybe make it more useful in every website but this one. Adam Cuerden(talk)03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this close-up photo adds EV to the article since the other photos in the article lack this level of detail, and the Featured Picture Criteria include the statement that the photo "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". I agree that a photo that showed the whole instrument would have stronger EV. In this case I think the photo does an excellent job at "making the viewer want to know more" which is also among the FP criteria. --Pine✉05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A picture of the whole instrument would be better. This doesn't contribute any major EV... An awesome picture, but not really for Wikipedia. Dusty77701:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great photograph, I'd vote for it in an instant on commons, but the EV is severely lacking because it's only a partial shot. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but I really don't like how the irestoration was recropped very tightly from the original. Reluctant oppose, but I will say this: Other than that, the restoration looks great. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I prefer the current crop over the original but agree that something not as tight would be better. If I get to a computer with decent internet access I'll try and save some of the extra room. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, that's not beyond repair; most of the damage is on a blank wall, and the rest is just small patches on a rug pattern complicated enough to not need full precision for the small bits missing. It takes a little practice with the clone stamp tool, but it's a good skill to have, as some of these images have much more complicated damage, such as damage to clothing or even the face. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Unindent] Looking pretty good so far! Two bits of advice, though: Don't save it as an interlaced JPEG, and work in lossless formats as much as possible while editing. =) Adam Cuerden(talk)22:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, limited by the system (and the fact that it's not my computer, so I have to save my work in progress on Commons). Thanks, it might take a while though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I have to agree on the crop, it doesn't work with such a tight crop. Disregard this if if an edit is posted with a looser crop. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark for my liking - very difficult to see much detail due to lack of light. For example I can see there is a statue just in front of the building (r of centre) but no chance of seeing what it is... gazhiley08:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange semi-transparent people and people missing their heads near the bottom of the photo. These kinds of errors can be fixed. --Pine✉04:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photograph is of the church, not the square and not the people in it. I have to admit that the bottom left corner with it's huge amount of lights is distracting when the rest of the image is so dark but the building is clear and even on the dark background I can make out detail on it so I think the incredibly high EV makes up for any composition issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though the composition is good, most of the animal except its head is out of focus. On technical grounds, I don't think this can be called one of the best of works in wikipedia. Yaks aren't all that uncommon that we can't manage a well shot, sharply focused picture of it. - DSachan (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 20:05:45 (UTC)
Original – The Red Colobus of Zanzibar (Procolobus kirkii), taken at Jozani Forest, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Seen here in the middle of his meal, enjoying a young leaf.
Reason
High EV, High technical quality, Excellent image size, facial features, excellent color, well-framed
Support as nominator --hasin 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment I like this, but I think the EV would be much better if we could see the bottom half of the animal. I don't suppose you have a picture with that available? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree EV may be better for a photo which could have the full animal (Afraid I don't have one at the moment). However, in such a photo, the focus would drastically move away from the facial features and the expression which compels the audience to want to know more. hasin 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand your view. Would it make a difference if the subject was meant to be cut-off to focus on facial features and feeding? hasin 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not really, if it was about this animal's features and feeding habits... For all we know this little bundle of fur could feed while standing on tip toe - we wouldn't know the full story without a full picture... gazhiley08:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid we will have to disagree then. I do not think Featured Pictures have to show the 'full story' as you claim. Featured pictures are meant to illustrate an article or part of it very well. A pictured can also be featured if it makes one want to know more. I think this picture qualifies on both grounds - as it illustrates the feeding on young leaves as well as being captivating due to the intense facial expression and sharp features. hasin 17:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasin Shakur (talk • contribs)
Personally I can't help but agree with your viewpoint, and I will admit I do like this picture... Unfortunately with my FP editor hat on I have to oppose it as cut off, as this is a reason quoted multiple times a day on here... See the nom above for the war statue - one of the main reasons for being opposed is that the base is cut off. The picture is striking, interesting, and makes the viewer want to know more... But because the whole statue isn't in view it is unlikely to pass... Ergo the standard for FP is pictures of a subject need to show the whole subject (and nothing but the subject so help me god)... I wish it was a wider shot as I would support in an instant... gazhiley13:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a much more forgivable type of crop. Witht he war statue, only a bit of the base was cut off, which is sloppy. With this one, it uses one of the standard cut-off points (the waist) and looks perfectly normal. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with minor reservations: The leaf "growing out" of his head is unfortunate, and the body is a bit blurry, but it's high-quality overall. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose it shows what it's meant to show but showing the face in high quality in my opinion makes up for the framing, not the focus issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 19:28:45 (UTC)
Original – Bangalore city skyline showing UB City to the left and Richmond area to the rightEdit 1
Reason
Good quality, resolution and EV. The only pano in the article. Image has been stable for some time now. There may be a few distractions but getting a good vantage spot is extremely difficult.
Support Can't see any reason to oppose, other than possibly a little dark... If the claims about the poor vantage point are correct then I don't believe we are easily able to get better than this... gazhiley09:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know how hard it can be to find good vantage points. This one is pretty good though, showing a variety of districts, and giving a sense of architecture and layout. Ðiliff«»(Talk)15:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might want to check at leaning to the left issue. I noticed it even on the thumbnail (thought it was me but then checked closely and found it to be real indeed, see right side). Seems good otherwise to me. - Blieusong (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the assumption that there will be some sort of agreement as to which way it is leaning, how much, and getting it fixed before a version is featured. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Bangalore Panorama edit1.jpg Per discussion with Muhammad and Diliff, any further changes, if they happen, will be very minor. It's time to promote. --Adam Cuerden(talk)08:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support adequate EV and technical quality. In response to Raeky, birds which live in urban environments often perch like this. If I thought this was an intentionally posed photo then I might oppose. --Pine✉04:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good image quality and good posture, but I do also find the chair slightly distracting, not for being a human artefact, but the strong reflections on the metallic bar. Maybe a bottom crop can help. --ELEKHHT01:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The EV is in the bird not in where it's standing. I don't find the bar all that distracting from the subject and as stated it isn't that odd in an urban environment. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the image, but isn't it a little small? It's only BARELY within the FP requirements, and - while I wouldn't for a moment suggest cropping it - the (good) composition still means the main subject is quite small for bird pics here. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 23:18:00 (UTC)
Original – St. James's Park Lake. Looking east from the Blue Bridge towards the fountains and Duck Island. Various landmarks are visible from this popular viewpoint, including the London Eye, The Shard and the government buildings in Whitehall.
Reason
A popular London view which includes many landmarks (see annotated image description page & article for details). An attractive, high resolution image of the park's lake and surrounds.
Thanks for your support. I've fixed it to say a 50-150mm lens at 80mm. To me, it isn't really important whether the lens was a zoom or prime as far as the picture is concerned. A zoom becomes whatever lens you want it to be. I get frustrated when I see books and magazines say a pic was taken with a "24-70mm" lens without saying what focal length was when they actually took the picture. Colin°Talk16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could photoshop Diliff's ducks into mine. He he. It would have been great to get a pelican in the shot - there was one in the west side of the lake. -- Colin°Talk08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 08:13:32 (UTC)
Original – Russian soprano Galina Vishnevskaya made several recordings during her long career. After retiring from stage performances, she stage directed one of Rimsky-Korsakov's operas and later opened an opera theatre in Moscow. She starred in the 2007 Russian film Alexandra.Alt 1: improved WBAlt 2: second attempt at WB correction
Reason
A noteworthy soprano who died on Tuesday. The portrait is clear, is of good resolution, and high quality. Unsure about the white balance though.
Support Alt 2. Yeah, I'm not sure about the skin tones/WB either, and I'm not sure if edits would improve things as the skin does look a bit posterised already. But it's still easily up to FP standards IMO, and one of the better portraits I've seen here recently, with a good mix of technical quality and character. Ðiliff«»(Talk)12:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The hair in Alt 2 looks a little purple in places, but of course that can happen with a particularly zealous dye job (I don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but that's clearly what we're looking at). I'm uncertain, but it's an awfully nice portrait particularly for a candid shot, and I'm willing to support alt 2, with slight doubts. Chick Bowen06:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did also lighten the shadows slightly as the blacks were a little underexposed, which I suppose brought out the purple colouring of her hair. When you say doubts, what are you doubting exactly? Whether the purple tint in her hair is real, or imposed by the WB correction? Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the answer wasn't supposed to be yes or no, I was asking which of the two alternatives (if I was correct about either) you were referring to. One alternative was doubting whether the tint is real, the other was doubting whether, as a result of the introduced purple tint, the WB correction was accurate? Ðiliff«»(Talk)18:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I apologize. I believe the WB correction has gone beyond what the lighting and exposure of the shot would have allowed, and that the purple is evidence of this. However, I think the image is probably slightly underexposed, and thus I'm not sure a perfect white balance, while still bringing out the detail lost in the dark areas of the original, is possible. Chick Bowen01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 2. Overall a good photograph, the WB in the original is way off and I didn't realize that people mummified as fast as shown in Alt 1 but Alt 2 has a good balance. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 16:44:24 (UTC)
Original – Volvariella bombycina is a widespread edible mushroom.
Reason
This image has high EV, as it illustrates many of the important distinguishing characteristics of the mushroom: the silky threads on the cap surface; the crowded, pinkish gills; the volva at the base of the slightly curved stipe; and the typical substrate–clefts or knotholes on tree trunks. In addition, the image is high resolution and the background makes the mushroom stand out.
Support Not perfect: The roof in the background is a little distracting, and at full resolution, there's a little noise on the gills, and the base is slightly blurry - but quite ample for a work without focus stacking. Adam Cuerden(talk)00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I was reluctant to comment in order to see what other people thought first. The classic feature of this railway station is Scott's Victorian Gothic front, which is a hotel but also serves as an entrance. This view shows the front and all of the original station side and just a small amount of the glass building that is an extension to the rear. As such I think the EV is very high and it deserves its place as the lead image. But in order to capture all this, from just across the road, the wide angle of view makes the perspective extreme. There is no place to capture from further back without blowing up the Barclay's bank behind me. Two distracting elements are the brown temporary portacabins above the Costa coffee (now replaced by a sculpture) and the Sainsbury's lorry blocking the view of the lower street-level front (though this is such an extremely busy road that this is hard to avoid). There is a huge amount of detail in this hi-resolution shot, which is why I think it is useful and valuable despite any perspective issues. -- Colin°Talk14:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic is also a pain, in this case the large truck is obscuring some of the front facade. And those people in fluorescent yellow don't make the street scene look better. But the image well captures the corner, and is much better than all other images of the station we have. Perhaps in winter when the foliage is gone, and maybe on a Sunday with less traffic a better view of the main facade is possible. --ELEKHHT00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I went there on a Saturday morning (which is my day for a lie-in - what sacrifices!) but it didn't help traffic. The busses are constant. Yes Sunday might be better. It also needs a morning shot, carefully timed, so the sun shines on the facade. The building looks dull in overcast sky. Too early or too late and there are shadows all over it. I'm taking the picture from a bus stop, hanging out near the road edge to avoid the bus shelter roof appearing in the picture, but not too close that the wing mirror of the next bus takes off my head. Ultimately, though, I'm just too close to the building to get an appealing perspective. Most folk just take a shot of part of this building, but I wanted the whole thing for the EV. Perhaps if I can climb on the roof of the bank? Where's my Spiderman costume... Colin°Talk08:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Their verticals aren't perfect and it looks stretchted at the top and compressed at the bottom. There's no getting away from the laws of physics - such a large building (both horizontally and vertically) needs to be photographed from further away. Theirs shows the shadows creaping up too. I think I did pretty well given the situation. Once they finish rebuilding Kings Cross station (which is just to the right), I'd like to get up that clock tower to see the view from there. Colin°Talk10:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 06:07:42 (UTC)
Original – The star cluster Pismis 24 lies in the core of the large emission nebulaNGC 6357 that extends one degree on the sky in the direction of the Scorpius constellation. Part of the nebula is ionised by the youngest (bluest) heavy stars in Pismis 24. The intense ultraviolet radiation from the blazing stars heats the gas surrounding the cluster and creates a bubble in NGC 6357. The presence of these surrounding gas clouds makes probing into the region even harder.
Reason
Good quality image, the image was already been chosen as and reached featured picture status in Commons.
Support Somewhat curious as to whether the speckles are part of the natural image or lens, signal, or processing noise but I think this falls under hte exceptions for hard to duplicate/historical photographs that allows for such things. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they're cosmic rays. Though that I don't know for certain is kind of embarrassing, given my father makes giant telescopes for a living. Adam Cuerden(talk)14:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 06:17:16 (UTC)
Original – Exploded diagram of the Hubble Space Telescope.For comparison: Original PNG.Not for voting an example of a more artistically done SVG exploded view. Some aesthetic elements from this could reasonably be copied to improve the one under discussion.
Info I replaced the Bitstream Vera Sans Regular font by regular Helvetica (and Arial when the aforementioned is not available), so the SVG renders better on most computers (and not with the default serif Times). - Blieusong (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why green? - I think you could go darker whilst maintaining sufficient contrast with the arrows, with a bit of thought. Also, could we have a source please? Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. Black illustration on white (possibly with red connector lines) or white on dark blue (blueprint colours) looks a lot better. Compare the PNG, which ends up looking more professional. The blue arrows with black heads are a particularly strange choice. Another issue is that the dotted red centre line goes off-centre by the time it reaches the lower left. For example, in the PNG source, the optical telescope assembly primary mirror and main ring has the equivalent line go through its centre. The same part is obviously askew from the centre line in the SVG. Admittedly, I don't think the centre line is kept straight in the PNG, but that doesn't justify making it straight, but not realigning the parts to match its new orientation in the SVG. Finally (?) the Optical Telescope Assembly Metering Truss draws the red line under the green illustration, including the bits that should be farther away from the viewer than the red line is. Adam Cuerden(talk)00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the red dotted line has one of its gaps very unfortunately spaced when it goes through the light shield. It finishes inside the drawing for the light shield, which means the Magnetic Torquer appears unconnected to it. The line needs to be seen to progress past the light shield's drawing. Adam Cuerden(talk)01:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lines connecting the Optical Telescope Assembly Equipment Section to the Support Systems Module Equipment Section are off: the right one connects with one of the corners of the OTAES, the left one is inside the curve of the OTAES, and actually extends downwards into the curve a bit. Both lines should come from the corners, as in the PNG. Adam Cuerden(talk)
I've added what I consider a more artistic exploded view to this page. Copying some aesthetics from it would probably work well. I do apologise for the lengthy critique, but this is meant to be the best work, but there's enough sloppiness in the SVG conversion to put it below that. A little more work and it should be fine. =) Adam Cuerden(talk)01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The overall geometry looks vaguely convincing but the standard of draughting and labelling achieves nothing like a professional standard. As a diagram, the labels are not really comprehensible unless (presumably) you already know how the thing works, and don't appear to cover any of the terms used in the article. You can't tell how the parts might fit together or what they do, even for example which end points at the distant object. ProfDEH (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image hasn't been in the article a week. Don't see this as any more compelling an image of poverty in Indian than countless others. The framing could have been further to the right. As a thumbnail, the subject is hard to see. The actual filename is editorialising, which we shouldn't do. -- Colin°Talk18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at 66 pixels per inch it's not super high resolution here... Also another similar panting by the artist on Google Art Project shows quite a bit darker colors, File:Lucas Cranach the Elder - The Stag Hunt of the Elector Frederic the Wise (1463-1525) of Saxony - Google Art Project.jpg... donno, it's good art for the period, but I'm more inclined to like the Google Art painting due to size, and reject this one on size grounds... Primary EV here I think is for the artist, and out of all the available paintings from him not sure this best represents his style... we have all the ones from the Google Art project uploaded on Commons now I think... [3] — raekyt22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually the same painting. Look at the trees at the top, or the castle in the upper right. I thinkt his is clearly the best of the images in his article currently, but I'm quite happy to withdraw if someone wants to change the images in the article to better ones, then nominate one of their selection. =) Adam Cuerden(talk)23:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the opening paragraph it say's he's well known for his portraits and religious paintings, so one of those probably would be better EV then a hunting scene. There's several to choose from.. — raekyt05:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, we recently got all of the tens of thousands of new Google Art images uploaded, so there is a potential HUGE flood of FPC's in art that could be done, and I wouldn't oppose to doing so, art is good. ;-) — raekyt05:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comprehensive view of the Sawtooth Valley and Sawtooth Range of Sawtooth National Recreation Area from Galena Summit on Idaho State Highway 75 north of Ketchum where many people experience their first view of the Sawtooth Valley and Range. Also a featured picture on Commons.
Weak Support. Not sure that I would call it stunningly well-composed, but it does show the three distinct segments of the valley quite well. Sharpness is quite poor though, and needs to be downsampled significantly (close to the minimum required res) to be properly sharp. Ðiliff«»(Talk)08:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough, and has strange red and blue effects on either sides of some of the tree trunks that should be a grey or white color. --Pine✉ 07:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I see the extended voting deadline has passed, although this only has 4.5 support votes so it will not pass anyway. --Pine✉07:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The top of this nomination page includes the statement "Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 00:14:13 (UTC)". Are you saying that five days are added to 26 December? --Pine✉21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Changing the 26 December date would require far, far more template changes, to the point of likely causing major problems when we try to stop the extension. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm not seeing the red and blue artifacts: I did fix some CA problems with the trees in the upper right that had purple fringes before this was nominated (apparently nobody caught that in the FP review on Commons). I've been trying different sharpening strategies, but have not yet arrived at sharpening that's not detrimental in some other way. Acroterion(talk)19:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the image with a program that does a better job of getting super close up on an image and what you are seeing on the bottom right hand side is moss with a blue tinge. Blue moss is sometimes found on trees with health problems, but normally just a difference in how the moss looks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough, and has strange red and blue effects on either sides of some of the tree trunks that should be a grey or white color. -Pine✉00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]