Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2016 at 08:57:39 (UTC)
Original – UK. Alfred Leete (1882-1933). Britons (Kitchener) wants you (British / Kitchener / needs you). 1914 (reprint), 74 x 50 cm. (Slg.Nr. 552). The title page of the "London Opinion" in 1914 for the first time printed images showing popular by its command posts in colonial wars War Minister Lord Kitchener. The advertising psychologically pioneering subject of fixing the viewer with the look in perspective enlarged outstretched forefinger was copied in several countries - the most successful in the United States and the Soviet Union.alt 1
Reason
One of those iconic war recruitment posters, this one coming from the London Opinion and making a splash at the commons where it is already featured.
Comment Been eyeing this. It's a reprint. It's better by far than what we have, but I'm somewhat waiting for a more original copy, especially given the darker printing. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Janke. There is a huge very high quality TIFF scan of the original London Opinion front page here [1] I might look at getting it converted and uploaded. I think it would have greater EV, be better quality and make a better potential FP than this version - Wolftick (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolftick: You known, it helps immensely when the guy who nominated the image is informed that there be a new version. I've put the alt in an article, so its now an eligible FPC candidate - not that it will be of much use, since we are also out of voting time here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: Sorry. I considered the availability of a similar but superior (in my opinion) image a reason for my oppose rather than a potential alt. I uploaded it because I had already downloaded and converted it for myself so thought it was worthwhile, but didn't plan on updating the relevant articles myself for the time being so didn't think it was eligible for, or relevant to, nomination other than if people might want to look in order to assess my judgement. In retrospect I realise it may have been useful to ping you to let you know of the existence of the image. - Wolftick (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the likely size (these tend to be about two to three inches wide) the resolution is decent (an estimated 500 to 800 dpi). Very nice view of Strauss.
Comment – Sorry to waltz in here with a critical comment, but I'm a little concerned with the virtual disappearance of Johann's tie. Sca (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 08:56:07 (UTC)
Original – Jigawa State School of Midwifery was created in 2010 by Aisha Moh’d Kazaure, because of the low number of midwifes in the state of Jigawa
Reason
Under represented person. She has started the first midwifery school in her part of Nigeria. There are other good pictures of her in the category (I'm not "a photographer" and this is my crop). If you can do better then please .... have a go.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2016 at 16:57:08 (UTC)
Original – A Gloriosa superba flower in the family Colchicaceae. It has a few common names in English such as flame lily, climbing lily, creeping lily, glory lily, gloriosa lily, tiger claw and fire lily.
Reason
HD image, EV, black background gives different appearance.
Oppose – Pretty enough image, but in addition to blown highlights much of the subject is out of focus. Also the lack of natural context, unusual composition and tight crop limits EV quite substantially. - Wolftick (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really like this one. Wildlife photographs that include a background of their habitat are more appealing to the eye and have a greater EV value as far as I'm concerned. MatGTAM (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They look kind of weird at full resolution. Is that accurate? I mean, maybe it's an effect of the oils on their feathers or iridescence or something, but it looks odd. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2016 at 18:26:09 (UTC)
Original – Billy Strayhorn, jazz legend who composed many of the iconic works in the genre, partially in collaboration with Duke Ellington.
Reason
You know, I don't want to brag, but: here's a commercially available restoration of this image. I think I did a better job, and I'm not charging for use. (And if you want to over-boost contrast until half the details behind Strayhorn fade into dark... I'm sure you can still do that.)
Articles in which this image appears
Billy Strayhorn + I just scattered it over a few song articles that lacked images.
Oppose - Lacking in contrast and brightness. Regarding the digital altering of the brightness/contrast from the original scan (@Adam Cuerden:): A photograph should not only be taken in such a way that it reflects reality, but also to expose useful or interesting detail in the depiction of a subject. The problem with attempting to match a preconceived idea of the skin tone of the subject is that the camera is far inferior to the human eye in exposing detail across a wide dynamic range. There is no absolute value when it comes to exposure or lighting so it is reasonable to vary it according the subject in order to preserve detail and compensate for this deficiency. If it is a picture of someone who has very pale skin or very dark skin I would expect the exposures and lighting to be different in order to preserve detail. I don't think this is unreasonable or in any way insensitive to the subjects race. For this reason I think adjusting the brightness of a photo very substantially from the original photo for this reason is not justified and I will likely oppose where I think this has a significant negative effect on the detail and clarity of the image. - Wolftick (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, Wolftick, this is from c. 1910. Those are rules for modern photography. We know he was dark. looking at pictures of him with other staff at the Institute shows he's by far the darkest skinned, and all other images I find that allow us a chance of seeing him in a context that allows us to judge clearly agree. Adam Cuerden(talk)00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The technology and capabilities have changed but I don't think the rules have. An image where the subject is insufficiently lit/exposed such that it makes it difficult to make out detail is a problem however light or dark the subject is. The group photo I think you mean is a better example in my opinon [2]. The relative darkness of the skin tone is clear but the lighting means that detail and clarity is preserved. - Wolftick (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is, there's a huge amount of detail and clarit. Every bit of his face is sharp and clear, as is his coat. There was never much detail in the collar and tie; the background has a lot of detail as well. The only thing that might possibly be awkward is that the background is a ssomewhat similar colour to him, but he's clearly distinct from it, even in thumbnail. Adam Cuerden(talk)03:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: I... disagree. Comprehensively. That was very late in his life, has weird composition (it's all shifted left), strange contrast (everything looks really faded), a large out-of-focus flower, what might be a hand at the bottom of the image, which is a blob - it's terrible. Perhaps you could crop that into something passable, but that shouldn't be an FP, and this should. Further, if the problem is that this one supposedly doesn't have enough contrast between him and the background, that one has exactly the same issue. Adam Cuerden(talk)19:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will reconsider post delist of existing FP. About the contrast of this nom, I see merit in both sides. Wouldn't something between [5] and [6] work? Bammesk (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my previous edit, I had removed (striked) my oppose. I am ambivalent on supporting this nom. As Vesuvius Dogg noted, in a way it is a matter of taste, I like the image and the restoration quality but I find it a little hard to look at, too dark as a whole or overall. Bammesk (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Black Mahler", best known for his settings of Hiawatha, Coleridge-Taylor's works were hugely popular in the early 20th century, indeed, only the Second World War stopped The Song of Hiawatha being a major annual event in London after 15 years.
Weak support – Good image and good restoration. I still cannot get over the backrest extending high above his shoulders, it looks like wings or some kind of armor! sorry. This image: [7] is better, not sure it is sharp enough though. Bammesk (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, those will pretty much never be featured quality, and as a Briton, the resources are buried a lot harder than they would be for a country that releases its archives. Adam Cuerden(talk)07:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 16:45:07 (UTC)
Original – Amar Jyoti, a 2 h 30 min 1936 Hindi social, action adventure, drama film
Reason
complete restored film of 2 h 30 min with English subtitles, cited as a "noteworthy", and in which the lead actress is cited as her most "memorable" role. The film has been cited as a "great film", an "outstanding film", an "adventure classic" and the first Indian film screened at the Venice Film Festival.
Unless the translations were released with a creative commons license, they are not free. Translation attracts its own copyright, above and beyond the copyright of the original work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 19:59:38 (UTC)
Original – "Five antennas of the Australia Telescope Compact Array, near Narrabri, NSW. This photograph was taken in the late phase of the construction process (~1984). This is a long exposure photo taken in darkness late evening. During the exposure, the photographer walked around the dishes firing off over 130 flashes using a hand held flash gun. Obituary of photographer with description of this image's technical hurdles" -- description from the file page on CommonsALT – cleaned up shaded patches in sky
Reason
Seems to be the best photo that we have of this subject, and the photo itself has some historic value
Comment – I want to support, but the blue sky has these shades of darker and lighter patches, they are easier to discern by spanning the image across the screen at full resolution. Any thoughts about removing them in software? Bammesk (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question I can see the image has been reverted back to the original by "Colin", advising he will take the discussion to a "talk page", but I cannot find that discussion on his or Bammesk's talk page - any idea why this was reverted? gazhiley17:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a cleaner ALT. Looking at the focal point reflectors, the primary light source is ambient. The 130 flashes seem to be fill light for base pedestals. Bammesk (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 21:28:17 (UTC)
Original – Hydraulic turbine and electrical generator, cutaway view. A : Generator; B : Turbine; 1 : Stator, 2 : Rotor, 3 : Wicket gate, 4 : Turbine blade, 5 : Water flow, 6 : Turbine generator shaft.
Reason
This is an image of a water turbine that caught my eye, and does a good job of explaining the parts in a water turbine that move to generate electrical force from flowing water. Note that this is an .svg file, and therefore while not at the minimum pixel requirement it should not be an issue due to the ability of svg files to be resized as needed without compromising the image quality.
@Bammesk: Usually in an image of this nature the image does not incorporate the IDs is so that the IDs for the numbered parts can be translated into different languages (for example, this M4 Sherman tank image). This is usually the case for images of this nature that are based out of the commons repository, although in fairness to your point there really isn't a reason why an English specific version could not be created. We have several images like this one that do include the English subtitles (for example, England Expects, the V2 ballistic missile, and this 16"/50 gun turret). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but this image is too generic. It isn't obvious that the top is electric. It needs something to distinguish it as a hydroelectric generator. Bammesk (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 21:34:36 (UTC)
Original Feb 2011 storm moves across the U.S. - Animation made with images from the NOAA-NASA GOES 13 satellite showing a giant storm developing and moving across the U.S. The animation shows clouds building over New Mexico and Texas early in the day. As the system develops and moves north-east, the storm grows and becomes more organized. By the end of February 1, 2011, the storm was a sprawling comma that extended from the Midwest to New England. Description from nasa.gov
Reason
This is a satellite video loop from the North American region for an approximately 72-hour period beginning 31 January and ending 2 February, during which time a rather sizable portion of the United States and parts of Canada and Mexico experienced one of the worst Winter Storms/Blizzard in history. This was one of only 16 storms to have earned a Category 5 rating on the Regional Snowfall Index. This image comes to us courtesy of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the parent organization of the US National Weather Service, which operates a number of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GEOS) - include the GOES 13 bird which captured this specific footage - in conjunction with NASA. Given that tomorrow will mark the 5 year anniversary of the event and that the original nomination missed passing by one !vote last time around, I thought it would be a good chance to renominate the image and see if it doesn't have better luck this time.
If anyone would like to add that last support I would be grateful, because I'd rather this not fail to pass by 1 !vote again. Seriously, 1 !vote is all we need. Please consider supporting. Please. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2016 at 01:45:37 (UTC)
Original – Shirley Chisholm, American Congressional Representative, and first woman and first African-American to run for a major American party's presidential nomination.
Reason
A very nice image. One of the best-preserved I've seen in ages.
Support - Very high quality. I downloaded the large original file to make sure and it looks a good as one might expect given the 4k resolution and sufficient bitrate - Wolftick (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there is so far only one FP for Formula One. Over the past year, I was able to accumulate pictures of almost every Grand Prix, and I believe this is the most beautiful one. I especially enjoy the colors, which stands out very much, particularly how the orange banded tyres work with the color scheme of the rest of the car.
Support – Not being conversant in F1, I can't judge significance, but pic certainly captures speed, and detail at full res is pretty good, if perhaps not 100 percent. (Tight crop at rear, likely to be noticed by some, is not a prob, IMO.) Sca (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: It is certainly not a majorly significant car in the history of F1, but considering the current lack of F1 FPs, I'd say it would be a good thing to have another one. I am thinking about then using it as a possible infobox photo for Formula One car. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to like it as I am a fan of F1, but what is in focus is grainy, and there are many parts of the machine that are out of focus. I am not saying I can do better, but the bar is high in terms of action shots, and this doesn't quite meet that. FYI the orange banding on the tyres denotes the conditions and therefore tyre choice, rather than matching the car, in case anyone thinks otherwise... gazhiley16:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazhiley: I know, but I feel that it still matches the Force India very well here. It is really hard to find F1 shots that are completely in focus... I chose this one because the other ones from the Grand Prix suffered from this even more so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be the best of the options, car action shots are able to be better, looking at the selection we have passed through this process. Sorry. gazhiley12:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a decent photo, indeed, one that I would be extremely proud of. However, it has minimal EV, and it is not as sharp as would be desired. The tight crop is also detrimental to the overall appearance. Harriastalk22:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias:@Wolftick: I am no expert in photos, but it seems to me that the extreme high resolution of the photo works against it here. Would I only supply it in the minimal expected resolution of 1500px, the lack of sharpness would probably not be noticeable? Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: I would always prefer the larger image and realise that downsampling images can be superficially beneficial to image quality at the expense of discarding information. I try to take this into account, saving the image then properly resizing/sampling it if I think it would help. It's a very good, valuable image but I just don't think it is quite there overall for FP. As mentioned the bar for actions shots in general is very high. - Wolftick (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – Well, it is what it is: A 50-year-old hand-held and -focused B&W news shot (probably taken on Tri-X with a strobe) that lacks detail, even by '60s film standards, IMO. (I was around in those days.) Also cuts off her hands. Fine for her article, but ... ?? Sca (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't think it quite has sufficient the EV to overcome the very substantial quality issues in regard to FP criteria - Wolftick (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2016 at 23:47:29 (UTC)
Original – Gwendoline Chomba Konie (1938 – 2009) was a Zambian poet and Presidential candidate
Reason
@Adam Cuerden: told me to try a nomination (I have been requested to add other reasons - she represents poorly represented groups, its black history month, there is a Nigeria writing contest on, I like trying new things .... )
Support While the image isn't absolutely perfect (the nametag intervenes a bit), between the high quality of all other aspects of the image and combined with the underrepresentation of people from pretty much any African country, I think this easily passes the bar. Adam Cuerden(talk)00:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you please update the reason to something other than "Adam told me to?" Ie the reason you wish to nominate this image, why you think it is FP worthy please? gazhiley12:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 12:13:51 (UTC)
Original – Aurat, 1940 Indian movie
Reason
high resolution (1080p) of a famous movie. This movie was remade as Mother India, "which is considered as one of the biggest hits of all time in Indian Cinema"
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 08:56:07 (UTC)
Original – Jigawa State School of Midwifery was created in 2010 by Aisha Moh’d Kazaure, because of the low number of midwifes in the state of Jigawa
Reason
Under represented person. She has started the first midwifery school in her part of Nigeria. There are other good pictures of her in the category (I'm not "a photographer"). If you can do better then please .... have a go.
"Adam told me to do it".... it appears that my motives fopr nominating this image effects other peoples opinions. So I have been asked to think of other reasons apart from the actual one. So ... I think its good that this person represents two underreprsented groups on Wikipedia. I also thought that I might learn something about the FP process... and I have
Comment – The bright lighting on the right side of her head is distracting. Is there any chance of dimming it a little? may be one stop? Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you please update the reason to something other than "Adam told me to?" Ie the reason you wish to nominate this image, why you think it is FP worthy please? gazhiley12:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure I see the EV, how does one determine that she is notable? What makes her special and not the hundreds of thousands of other civil servants? One of the references in the page doesn't even mention her, but Nigeria's Akinwumi Adesina instead. Mattximus (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply She was the person responsible for the .ng domain. Thats a fairly important job. Not sure what EV is. She is also a Permanent Secretary for a ministry.... another top ranking job in (UK style) civil service. Victuallers (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notability is not part of the criteria; so long as a subject is notable enough for an article, they're notable enough for FP. Image is clear and sharp. Lighting is admittedly stark, but that was a deliberate choice by the photographer that I can get behind in this case. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to portraits of politicians or civil servants I think that notability is an aspect of WP:FP? #3 "Is among Wikipedia's best work.[?]". Such official professionally shot public domain portraits are fairly common so notability as well as quality are factors when considering a FPC. I believe this has precedent in previous similar nominations, as well as with coats of arms and flags. - Wolftick (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A belief is simply not enough; do you have any actual evidence of precedent? In my 5+ years commenting on FPC nominations, I've seen that official portraits have generally failed and succeeded not on the notability of the individual alone, but on the quality of the image and the whims of the !voters. Yes, there are one or two editors *cough* who will !vote on notability, but they are in the minority. That's why we have (political portraits alone) Teddy Roosevelt just a few rows away from Annkathrin Kammeyer.
As a side note: I think that it's good that we've got a lot more freely licensed official portraits to choose from. I, for one, am tired of looking at biographies which have no pictures whatsoever. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a side note, I fully agree.
I do think though that it is an issue where large numbers of high quality but rather similar fairly generic professional portraits of contemporary politicians etc are available to be nominated for FP. I don't think it would be good to promote all of them en masse so I think there should be some criteria beyond simply the quality of the picture, which is by it's nature likely to be of a high technical standard. I had seen people mentioning notability in this regard previously and did not think this was an unreasonable criteria to use where the portrait itself is not particularly exceptional in my opinion. I suppose in a way it's not how notable the person is, rather how notable or exceptional the portrait is taken as a whole. I think this is a reasonable interpretation of WP:FP? #3 - Wolftick (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While there's some motion blur on the arm, this is easily one of the best conference photos I've seen. It has a lot of life and personality to it, the microphone is minimally intrusive, and the face is very sharp.
Support – Per nom. Although her article at 300 words is quite brief, pic is a nice 'action' capture of a fairly notable person who seems quite animated at this moment. (Doesn't hurt that subject is black & fem.) Sca (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the pose and motion blur are less than ideal, but good quality conference photos are rarer for Wikipedia then I would like, this person seems to meet the notability requirements, and there is EV in showing this person at a conference in their field. --Pine✉05:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It's a candid shot of a real event, not a posed 'official' photo. A small amount of motion blur on the subject's extremities is acceptable in these circumstances, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 05:08:23 (UTC)
Original – From the photo's file page: "The Sacra di San Michele, sometimes known as Saint Michael's Abbey, is an architectural complex built on top of Mount Pirchiriano, situated on the south side of the Susa valley, in the Piedmont region of northwestern Italy. Founded between the late 10th and the early 11th century, the abbey is located along the pilgrimage route that joins Monte Sant'Angelo, in the south of Italy, to Mont Saint-Michel, in the north of France."
Weak Oppose While I like the Evil Villain hideout appearance of this building, there's just too much cloud in front of the building obscuring details. It's actually worse at thumbnail than full res, which is unusual, but is off putting. I appreciate the probable difficulty of taking a clear shot, but this isn't quite good enough sorry. There also seems to be too much space to the right of this picture making it strangely unbalanced. gazhiley12:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Striking scene. The mist in the air doesn't detract, IMO – just makes it more eerie. But is the pic tilted slightly to the right? Or is it just me? Sca (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 20:48:57 (UTC)
Original – Royal Falkland Islands Police headquarters station located in Stanley, East Falkland. First constructed in 1873 (with additions over time), it was severely damaged by a (British) missile strike during the 1982 Falklands Conflict. Completely refurbished in 2008, the prison (smaller building to the left) was added in 2009.
Reason
High quality, high EV. Only police station in the Falkland Islands. (Replacement of similar image, not in the article for 7 days).
Comment - It's nice, but I feel as though having a bit more space under the sidewalk and the whole building (right side) would result in a better picture. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Good question. The title of the painting is Battle of Moscow, 7th September 1812 which is the same date as the Battle of Borodino. I guess it wasn't known as the "Battle of Borodino" at the time and instead was known as the Battle of Moscow, or in other words: the Battle for Moscow. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Historical EV, good detail. A significant event that ultimately led to the final defeat of Napoleon three years later. The Russians call it the Battle of Borodino (Бородинское сражение) while the French refer to it as the Battle of Moscow (Bataille de la Moskova), but it was fought at Borodino, 60 mi./100 km. west of Moscow. It's a French painting, but in English the event is generally known as the Battle of Borodino. – Sca (talk)
Oppose What's the EV here? While this might be an interesting example of eccentric 18th century military art in which details of events are squished together, it bears little resemblance to the battle. Soldiers are marching in wildly different directions for no reasons, there's a random truce with a cavalry fight imediately behind it, the hospital is oddly bloodless, few of the prisoners seem very worried about the bomb about to explode near them (and where did it come from?), etc. This would have EV in an article on the painting, artist or genre if it was explained in the text, but I don't see any in articles on the battle or war. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. It's over 2.5m across so just above min resolution really isn't sufficient in my opinion. I make it a mere 19dpi - Wolftick (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2016 at 02:50:32 (UTC)
Original – Al Grey, jazz trombonist best known for his work in the Count Basie Orchestra.
Reason
Another excellent William P. Gottlieb documentation of jazz greats. Cap proved a little troublesome, but think I brought out some of the detail, at least at full res.
Weak Support Very grainy in the valley itself, mainly on the patches of water. Not opposing as the picture as a whole is really nice, but can't full support as per above... gazhiley15:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator (and my God, it has been a long time coming!) Am taking suggestions for changes/ improvements, if anyone has any. – KDS4444Talk09:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! Can't think of a better word. I've only dabbled in the most basic diagraming - a clade or two - but this is off the charts. Excellent contribution. Atsme📞📧14:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks, Atsme...! Thank you!! I think my scallop diagram was technically a better drawing, but I've been working on this one for over a year now and finally decided it was time to bring it to the world. I have a revised limpet that might be done soon, and there's a scaphopod I must finish ere I leave this world (which I hope won't be for a very long time yet, but at the rate I go sometimes, you never know). So keep your eyes peeled, there will be at least two more! (eventually). KDS4444Talk03:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You realize this kind of flattery is going to make me spend even more of my time making even more diagrams of even more creatures...! KDS4444Talk07:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's an excellent diagram, but the details are rather tiny. I know it shouldn't be an issue with SVGs, but this still somewhat limits practical use; the nephridia are barely discernible at 1280px. Also, I'm wondering if it would be possible to convey the repeated segmentation without having to draw every single septum, which currently partly obscures much of the detail, covering the organs in swaths of blue overlay. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got your comment, and I've now taken a shot at changing the image per recommendations: I adjusted the septa so that they would be more transparent generally and then less transparent toward their edges and centers with a more transparent ring running between the two (if that makes sense...?). I also tried to make the nephridia more prominent by removing some of their darker outlines, making the bladder brighter, and making the shadow behind each nephridium appear darker. One of the problems with the nephridia is that they just are very thin parts of the worms anatomy, and don't even show up well in most sections. But they are there, and are part a very important body system, so I think they must be included. Let me know if they are any more discernible now. Also note that I have included a number of small details which are just going to be missed by most casual observers (details like the tiny nephrodiopores). I drew these in because I knew they were there— think of them as Easter eggs for those who really take a thorough look at the image! KDS4444Talk16:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2016 at 04:48:44 (UTC)
Original – A portrait of a male greater kudu, showing its horns. Males of this species sport large horns with two and a half twists which diverge slightly as they slant back from the head.
Reason
High quality portrait. Has good EV for showing the horns.
Support While I would prefer the whole animal, I like this framing. He doesn't seem to be too happy at the photograph though! gazhiley10:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While this does show its age in its composition quite a bit, Cardiss Collins was an amazing woman - I don't think all this is in her biography, but - she basically took over a congressional seat on her husband's death, and had to grow into the position, conquering shyness and lack of confidence to rise to powerful positions - President of the Congressional Black Caucus, ranking member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and 24-year Representative for Illinois's 7th district.
I'll have to Oppose this one - it looks like it is a second- or third-generation reproduction of the original photo; it has lost much highlight and shadow detail. --Janke | Talk09:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: I'm not sure you're right, but, that said, I'm not sure my explanation - that I think the image was a little over-exposed as most images of darker-skinned people were before colour film came in - will change your mind. There's PLENTY of shadow detail, it's the highlights and, to a lesser extent, the midtones that are a little lacking. Adam Cuerden(talk)18:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looking at various other images of her during this time frame (1970s), this looks to be among the best. The later pictures of her (1990s/2000s) are a bit better balanced, lighting-wise, but I don't know how many of those are free. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fascinating woman who had a strong positive influence in Congress, was one of the trailblazing women of the second wave of African Americans in Congress (and the first wave of African-American women), and has a sharp portrait with good lighting and sharpness. I haven't found the exact source (even after contacting the Library of Congress), but the proximate source is https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-108hdoc224/pdf/GPO-CDOC-108hdoc224.pdf - page 453 as numbered in the document; 461 as automatically numbered by the PDF.
Support Slightly hidden features, but I would say that that is likely the best we will get. What we can see seems to have excellent detail. gazhiley14:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Despite our historic oversupply of Asian bird pix, I like this one. Good detail. (Could be cropped a little bit tighter – ??) Sca (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]