Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/June-2012

Featured picture tools
Featured pictures (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates (on Wikimedia Commons) Featured picture thumbs Featured picture archive Picture of the day (Guidelines) Picture of the day archive (and schedule)
v t e

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2012 at 15:17:25 (UTC)

Reason

Rare EV and historical evidence with a picture showing the world leaders who were present in 2010 G-20 Seoul summit, adding much EV to this article and others. The faces of all the leaders are shown with good detail. All the leaders' faces are annotated in Commons (although I couldn't found the annotations on the file's page here; added leaders in description after a comment below). I noticed there are dark areas in the picture's top, but I don't feel they damage the image's EV.

Articles in which this image appears

2010 G-20 Seoul summit, 2010 in South Korea, European Union, Foreign relations of South Korea, G-20 major economies, Seoul Development Consensus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Presidencia de la Nacion Argentina

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – needs at least a "left to right" description of who these people are on the file page, I think. I don't think anyone would mind the repetition on Commons and it would be useful to those with annotations. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did it. Tomer T (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Crop is tight on the left and right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really that important to shadow over the huge EV? Tomer T (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very high EV, very significant subject matter, hardly replaceable. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per J Milburn. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pine^✉ 10:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportextra999 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Love it when photos like this end up under free license. (late vote) -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:2010 G-20 Seoul summit.jpg extra999 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 10:36:13 (UTC)

Reason

Intriguing object, well excectued photograph, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Foot binding

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

Vassil

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think we have an FP of this already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you're mistaken with this. Tomer T (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Crisco means this one. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. Didn't notice it since it wasn't in Foot binding article. Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. I prefer the old FP, to be honest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 17:30:40 (UTC)

Reason

Well executed, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

California sea lion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV for the article, adequate technical quality. Pine^(talk) 18:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not convinced on EV. The image is located in the California_sea_lion#Description section of the article, but there is nothing there or in the image caption there that mentions something significant about the skeleton or some factor that is a direct result of the skeletal structure. Personally, I think a regular photo of the sea lion would have much stronger EV, especially in that section of the article. Spencer^T♦C 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I don't understand. How would a photo of a skeleton of an animal have low EV? A photo of the skeleton of any creature would have good EV for the article about the creature, wouldn't it? Pine^✉ 06:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited the section title to make it describe the contents better. I think the problem was more with the section title than with the image. Pine^✉ 06:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least for me, unless the organism is a fossil, a photograph of the full, complete animal would have much more ev than just a picture of its skeleton, because that shows outer colors and characteristics, whereas the skeleton just shows body structure (which a photograph of the full animal shows as well). If the skeleton doesn't have something distinctive about it (unique vestigial structure, etc.), then an image of the skeleton has lower ev than an outer photograph, if such a photograph is possible. Spencer^T♦C 16:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Lacks sharpness - I suspect a slight motion blur of the camera rather than DOF problems as I can't find anywhere that's really sharply focussed, and it is shot at F8 so there should be a fair range decently focussed; I guess it could just be a low quality lens, or even post-processing issues, but the cause is really neither here nor there. On EV grounds, there's something odd with the ribcage - appears that the ribs have been cut off, no sign of a sternum that I can make out, etc. I'm also not sure that having the limbs overlaying each other gives the best view of the bone structure, and not that it's particularly pertinent, but I am not really clear on how this was laid out/mounted for the picture. --jjron (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jjron, Front or back focused is another alternative. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 17:17:03 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high resolution, notable painting

Articles in which this image appears

Barge Haulers on the Volga, Ilya Repin, History of painting, Russian Museum, The Song of the Volga Boatmen, Steamboats on the Volga River, and more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Ilya Repin

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Moderate details at full view. Brandmeister^talk 18:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 17:00:51 (UTC)

Reason

High quality historic picture of one of the most important modern painters, by of the most important photographers in the history of photography

Articles in which this image appears

Claude Monet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Nadar (Edit by Dsmurat)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this version I prefer the uncropped version since it shows more of his jacket, and in general I prefer less alteration since it would make for greater historical authenticity of the photo. Pine^(talk) 18:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the original version as alt. Tomer T (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt the quality problems visible full size are understandable given the age of the photo, and the photo has high EV. Pine^✉ 10:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there possibly a compromise version that is uncropped like the alt but darker? Right now the alt is very bright and you can't make out much detail on the top or right side of his face. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 10:45:28 (UTC)

Reason

Highly valuable, and shocking, illustration of bound feet, showing the deformation of this method.

Articles in which this image appears

Foot binding

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others

Creator

James Ricalton

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a poor quality reproduction of one half of a stereogram [1] which Rob Oechsle credits to James Ricalton ( quite likely as Underwood & Underwood used many of his photos) Yomangani^talk 11:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added this to the text. Tomer T (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And about the quality - the one in Flickr is of much smaller resolution, and I don't think the quality here is that bad (although not ideal). I couldn't find a better version. And it's of similar quality to this for example. Tomer T (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on the ground that the file is not correctly licensed for use in the United States. If the work in which it was published was published in the United States, which is probable, PD-1923 applies. If not, we're going to need one of those tags for foreign publication that mention whichever circuit 1909 is the cut-off date. (Disregard this oppose if fixed whether or not I've struck it myself.)Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2012 at 15:02:36 (UTC)

Reason

Good clarity, quality and EV. Nice food shot.

Articles in which this image appears

Mandarin orange

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Jovianeye

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I considered this when it was POTD on Commons, but decided it was a little out of focus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - Not a fan of the reflection and glare, and would prefer to see one full example each with and without leaves, but as it stands the EV and quality are good enough. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose All fruits are partially obscured. Also it would be good to have one cross-sectioned fruit for higher EV. Brandmeister^talk 09:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2012 at 06:50:27 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV, striking painting

Articles in which this image appears

Equestrian Portrait of the Count-Duke of Olivares, Gaspar de Guzmán, Count-Duke of Olivares, House of Olivares, Favourite, A Game at Chess

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Diego Velázquez

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful support I don't like the painting. But it has good EV, a free license, and is shown clearly in a large image. Pine^✉ 06:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV. Tomer T (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Count-Duke of Olivares.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2012 at 09:18:58 (UTC)

Reason

Good encyclopedic value and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

George Washington Masonic National Memorial, List of monuments dedicated to George Washington

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jovianeye

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Possible right tilt of the building. Brandmeister^talk 10:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a tilt fix as alt. Tomer T (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original I did correct the perspective and distortion of the lens manually. The tilt you are mentioning is very very minute. In the original, tilt was corrected using the horizontal line above the pillars. In the Alt version, this horizontal line is tilted. IMO, sticking to the original is fine. --Jovian Eye _storm 03:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upstateNYer 13:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I see some tilt in both versions. Pine^✉ 07:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as I recently supported this for PotY at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2012 at 19:58:13 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Troupial

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Background looks a little artificial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would oppose on the grounds that the background does not appear to be natural, or at least is so out of focus that it contrasts too much with the bird in the foreground. Bbourgeois^(talk)
• Support it does appear that the photo was taken in a controlled environment, but I do not believe an "unnatural" background detracts from the encyclopedic value OR image quality. I think it's great. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment feathers on the bird's chest seem out of focus. Pine^✉ 10:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2012 at 17:30:58 (UTC)

Reason

Very intense map in English, showing the development of the 18th century carthography. Numerous features include star chart for both hemispheres, seasonal chart, analemma projection, Moon map according to Riccioli, map of Solar System, sunspots, the annual motion of Sun around Earth and telescopic view of planets.

Articles in which this image appears

1794 Samuel Dunn Map, Samuel Dunn (mathematician), History of cartography

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Samuel Dunn/Thomas Kitchin

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- For ease of viewing http://zoom.it/q7cJ --Chrismiceli (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The file page should have a large image template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Brandmeister^talk 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - Looks a little grainy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support An absolutely stunning and monumental double hemisphere wall map of the world by Samuel Dunn. al (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would prefer the version without the contrast enhancement. Pine^✉ 10:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reverted, will upload as separate file if necessary. Brandmeister^talk 20:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the un-enhanced version. I see what's meant about the grain when viewed at 100% but given the size of the image I think this can be forgiven. Pine^✉ 22:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2012 at 09:03:16 (UTC)

Reason

High EV drawing showing the polar and ecliptic views of Kuiper belt and Scattered disc objects. The drawing is in SVG format.

Articles in which this image appears

Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, and Portal:Astronomy/Featured/October 2008

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

Eurocommuter

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note there are some minor imperfections with what looks like partially erased yellow and red rings in the lower left corner of the image. These don't affect the EV. I can't edit an SVG image but if someone can erase those, that would help. Pine^✉ 09:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: I'm sold on the EV of the data, but the representation is to my mind badly lacking. It needs a tidy (the red stroke on the views; a more traditional legend, needed, I think; the diagrams needlessly almost overlap...). I'm going to try and find the time to do an alt for this, if I don't, then make this a neutral. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Officially neutral; have uploaded my alternative which I believe is a considerable improvement to presentation. Structurally I cleaned up the SVG file as well. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I prefer the edit, but I think the legend is lacking. Would it be improved by replacing the dry text with a key somewhat inline with how the London Underground labels the different lines? 109.149.73.110 (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, there's something going on with whitespace above the scale to the left of zero. 109.149.73.110 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the whitespace - if the markings can't now be seen (and I think they can) putting a white rectangle behind them is not the right solution. I'm in two minds about the key – keys aren't necessarily required to look pleasing, they're expected to give information. Having said that, if others would like a graphical key, I'll change it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer alt thanks for the edits. Pine^✉ 06:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The alt is starting to look nice, but I can't differentiate all of the objects in orbit, regardless of how far I zoom in because the lines are too thick. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)#[reply]

I don't think that's what the viewer is likely to do, because the diagram illustrates the general spread of objects – they aren't individually labelled or anything. I tried reducing the stroke but it takes a reduction so great that it ruins the utility at of the file at all except the highest zoom levels. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What are the criteria for inclusion for this diagram? As it stands, the extreme (80 degree tilt) orbit in the bottom panel does not appear to be mirrored in the top panel. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is in the light gray on the top panel also as a light gray orbit. Pine^✉ 09:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is, it's included incorrectly. This is advertised as a "polar view", so that orbit would have to extend only 5 AU to the left and 20 AU to the right, and I see no such object.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file description page gives details. The orbits have been consolidated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I did not see that there was additional description on that page. In that case, Weak Support Alt; I'd honestly rather see all their true orbits as they actually appear in relation to one another, but I suppose there is encyclopedic value in seeing them compared in this way. Technically excellent.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2012 at 04:59:55 (UTC)

Reason

good quality and EV

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Sami Malek, Simsala111

Articles in which this image appears

Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsala111 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator --Simsala111 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close, first it's not used here at wikipedia which is a requirement for nomination. As for technical grounds the foreground is less than ideal and Oppose on those grounds, poor composition. We have Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge which is over-illustrated as it is, so I'm going to assume the inclusion of this picture is probably not a good idea. — raekyt 08:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it doesn't meet requirements since it hasn't been in the article the required 7 days, that and it's in what appears to be a gallery but not gallery, and definitely just thrown into an already over-illustrated article... so still Speedy Close — raekyt 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend Nomination until June 4th. Simsala, this means that the FP nomination will be will be suspended for seven days to meet the featured picture criteria. On June 4th, the nomination will resume. You can either choose this, or if you want, we can close the nomination, and in seven days you can create a new one. Dusty777 03:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2012 at 13:04:21 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, good resolution representation of Los Angeles' premier indoor sports and entertainment arena, and one of the more notable indoor sporting arenas in the world. Hard to get without heaps of distracting traffic, etc, out front.

Articles in which this image appears

Staples Center and Los Angeles, amongst others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. It does feel a bit tightly cropped though. I feel like it needs some space on the road in the foreground at least, even if there were distracting elements on either side of the stadium. The trees and the skyscraper behind don't help either, but if this is the 'best' angle to view the stadium from, then I suppose they're part of the scene. It's one of those subjects where only an aerial shot would really be ideal. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, a fair bit of muck around the building being LA, not just at ground level but into the skyline, IMO necessitating a tightish crop as it gets messy. And a bit of a shame they decided to build the first scyscraper in LA in 20yrs right behind this joint, but it's there now (many slightly older photos of course don't show it, or have it in various stages of construction, misrepresenting what is now the scene). I considered a crop at the top taking a chunk of the building out, but I think it would look a bit weird, unless it was cloned out completely. I guess we could demand aerial of shots of lots of things we've featured, but they're usually not very likely or practical for most of us, are usually not a typical view, and as a trade-off you'd lose a lot of the façade. --jjron (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Not the best crop, but mitigating factors given. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support agree with other comments about the crop. Pine^✉ 09:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The building needs to get removed. It distracts the what is suppose to be the main part of the picture.

earth8845 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is a distraction, but we are not in the habit of misrepresenting reality. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I think this is a case where our best just isn't going to be good enough. I don't believe the foreground and background distractions can be excused as part of its environment; they distract far too much from the subject of the photograph. We really need an aerial shot.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2012 at 14:09:48 (UTC)

Reason

Altered nomination of WP:Featured picture candidates/Map of Yosemite National Park. Complaints, which were entirely fair, by Avenue, concentrated on a) educational value and b) accuracy. I've done my best to correct the map, particularly label locations re:readability. On educational value it was Avenue's suggestion that this would be a stronger alternative – his concern was that the general articles didn't support, as written, a general map, but a specific article could support a specific map. (Strong verifiability has been maintained, something which is lacking in the raster version it replaced.)

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral Peak Granodiorite Only been in article 18 hours, but it replaced a raster version.

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

User:Grandiose based on work by the USGS

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I'm not a big fan of the color scheme. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the purple area (I was going for deliberately stand out) or generally? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I think that the default size is too small. I can't read anything at the default size. I think that a more muted colour scheme would be better. Road and contact lines are the same colour. This is confusing. The fault lines don't seem to be consistent in thickness. Some things aren't indicated in the key (eg the rivers). "Park" could easily be placed to avoid intersections. The border lines are off horizontal and vertical, and they should be the topmost layer, rivers and stuff are above the border. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all the alterations, save a couple I didn't quite understand. The fault lines should all be 1.5px (nominal), if there are some that aren't could you help me identify which? The word "Park" in "Yosemite national Park" is only over rivers, is that what you mean? If so, I'll move it if you think it's a problem. Is the colour scheme muted enough now? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "Park" under the assumption that's what you meant. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what is going on. The faults are one thickness, and the contacts are a different thickness. Perhaps that should be indicated in the key? JJ Harrison (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)\[reply]

OK, next question. Do the colours indicate anything, or are they effectively random? I'm wondering if it would look better if each rough age group was given a similar colour palette. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I chose the colours to match as closely as I could the USGS original, bearing in mind I removed the patterned overlays, which don't work so well on the range of sizes the file is likely to be viewed at,the recent toning down of parts of the colour range, and the need to make cathedral peak grandonite stand out more to help its contribution to the article. Judging by the very very detailed version provided in the "parent" nomination, the colours are consistent within some greater range of which some aren't included or have been consolidated. The varying colours have the distinct advantage of being different to each other. Most of the map is of the Cretaceous period and so they could end up difficult to tell from each other. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: First, I think the key is inaccurate, or at least misleading, in that it implies that the Cathedral Peak Granodiorite (CPG) is distinct from the Tuolumne Intrusive Suite (TIS), when it's actually a part of the suite. The colour scheme doesn't help; it indicates a sharp distinction between these two units, while suggesting a closer kinship between the CPG and the unrelated Jack Main Canyon Suite. In this respect, I think the map has less EV than the PNG version it replaced. I also find the colours jarringly vibrant for a geological map, but perhaps that's a matter of taste. I'd suggest moving the CPG key entry above the (rest of the) TIS entry, and rephrasing the latter one. I'd love for the colours to indicate the kinship of the CPG and TIS, while de-emphasising the various other plutons not covered in the article. It might even be worth distinguishing the other components of the TIS (as shown in the bottom map here), or at least its enclave within the CPG (the Johnson Granite Porphyry). The article runs through the various TIS components two or three times, first covering their geographic relationships (which the map could illustrate nicely), then their ages and chemical evolution.

The changes to the roading network and its display since the previous nomination are welcome, and the labelling of peaks and other features is also much improved. The underlying resolution has not improved, however. The drainage shown around Saddlebag Lake has been changed, but is still inaccurate, even physically impossible. These points are less important than the key and colour scheme issues, but still concern me a little. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2012 at 16:58:21 (UTC)

Reason

Great image: perfect and impressive composition, high quality, and strong EV

Articles in which this image appears

Poeke Castle, Aalter

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And support alt. Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Actually, I think the other image in the Poeke Castle article is much more interesting and dramatic. Both are slightly soft but seem to polish up quite well with a bit of sharpening. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer it too. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I chosed that because it had more focus on the castle itself. Although, when I think about it, the enviornment has also an important EV. I also like it very much - I'll add it as alt. Tomer T (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt. Still think it needs sharpening and I'd be tempted to upload a sharpened edit over the top but it's already featured elsewhere and I suppose that may tread on people's toes a little. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt agree with Diliff. Pine^✉ 09:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any Alt is more beautiful (to me) but both are as equally valuable for an encyclopedia IMO. - Blieusong (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt stunning photographs, clear EV in illustrating said building. My preference for the alt is from the look of it the moat is omitted from the original in an accidental but slightly misleading way. (if you study it, a moat-type ditch can be inferred.) Thus neutral on original. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Jkadavoor (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Beautiful! Dusty777 02:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Poeke Kasteel R03.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2012 at 11:07:17 (UTC)

Reason

Actual scorecard from record-breaking Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Contains in itself the whole story (scorewise) of the game, and is an interesting document. Of sufficient resolution that all information can be read. Public domain.

Articles in which this image appears

Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle

Creator

User:TwoWings

• Support as nominator --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure I agree that it's "of sufficient resolution that all information can be read" - even at full resolution I'm struggling to make out some of the text. Maybe I need a new monitor... Yunshui 雲‍水 12:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Yunshui, I would likely support a higher-resolution version, but as it stands a lot of smaller text is fuzzy and hard to make out. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've asked TwoWings if he has the file in higher resolution. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I assume the 7 cards are all separate pieces of paper? If so, it would be nice to have them aligned better. I also agree that the resolution isn't high enough. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : I've scanned this document from a source where the scoreboard is already miniaturized so I don't think I can have a better resolution. Sorry. TwøWiñgš Talk to me 12:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2012 at 09:48:52 (UTC)

Reason

Good lighting, clearly shows the animal's side profile, already in the article and I just moved it to the lead spot for higher EV

Articles in which this image appears

Cheetah, Werribee Open Range Zoo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 09:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Small size, and I'm not sure I like the back lighting. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I know this is a personal thing, and I'm not even sure if it's actionable, but I'm totally against featuring pictures of animals in captivity. I feel they should be presented in their natural habitat, and no matter how much a zoo or safari park tries to emulate it, it just isn't. Sorry. I love big cats, too. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 15:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since I haven't found a very good quality picture of a Cheetah, I've uploaded one I took myself. It's undownsampled 18mpix and yet quite sharp. I think it's worth being the lead picture of the Cheetah article and being nominated here as FP. What do u think? - Blieusong (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite the promised 18mpix :( because of cropping. Hope it's still big enough. - Blieusong (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2012 at 22:34:07 (UTC)

Reason

Good exposure and adequate quality, good composition showing the structure well with high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Temple of Bel, Beelshamen, Palmyra

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Bgag

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I really like the image in terms of composition, lighting, etc, but at full size it's really quite soft for an architecture photo of that resolution, and there's also a fair bit of artifacting in the sky (which I'd probably let slip otherwise). Metadata is missing, but I can only guess either focus somehow totally missed, or it's a lowish quality camera. --jjron (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too soft. I don't see anything in focus. Dusty777 01:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2012 at 22:29:54 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality. The wonders of nature.

Articles in which this image appears

Chlorociboria aeruginascens

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi

Creator

Holleday

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unusual and interesting color for a mushroom, adding to the photo's EV in my opinion. Photo quality isn't outstanding but it's good enough. Pine^✉ 11:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I usually don't go for mushrooms, but this one sure is interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe the species in this picture is incorrectly identified. Here's the problem: there are two very similar species, C. aeruginascens and C. aeruginosa. Although microscopy is required to definitively distinguish between the two, in general, the latter species has a lighter-colored center and a more or less roundish shape (as seen in this image), while the former is darker and more ear-shaped. It's an easy mistake to make, as many field guides only mention C. aeruginascens, and both species have a cosmopolitan distribution. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've put this photo into the infobox for its genus. --Avenue (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hello Sasata, thank you very much for your comment and sorry for my late answer but I´m only few days in the week in Wiki. Let me tell some words to the determination: My messurement of the spores showed a size of 6 to 10 ym. Then I looked for the geographic distribution of both species (Die Pilzflora des Ulmer Raumes, Manfred Enderle, ISBN: 3-88294-336-X) and I found that C. aeruginascens very often found in the area of Ulm. But if you are shure about the species I will change the species. Kind regards Holger -- Holleday (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Holger, I'm not sure either way. Please have a look at p. 856 of Ramamurth et al., where they discuss the two species. If you look at the key on the next page, your spore range of 6–10 μm is suggestive of aeruginascens (4.2-)5–8(-9.8) μm, but does not definitively exclude aeruginosa (7-)9–12(-15.4) μm. (Should also mention that this key is from measurements of North American, not European, specimens, so there may be differences). Macroscopically, the image suggests aeruginosa ("nearly circular in outline"), unfortunately, there aren't any stipe attachments viewable in the picture for us to see if the attachment was lateral or central (perhaps you have another image that shows this?). According to this source, a more definitive microscopic characteristic is the presence of roughened (aeruginosa) vs. smooth (aeruginascens) hyphae comprising the tomentum. Do your microscopy notes indicate this? To me, this case is ambiguous, and without more information I can't support an image that macroscopically resembles a similar species. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Sasata, thank you very much for the interesting link. According this informations it seems that this fungus is a mix between the two species :-). The characteristics of C. aeruginascens: Smooth hyphea: I´m not sure; laterally attached: some exemplars (please see left side and in the background); often greater 5 mm: Many exemplars (please see beech leaf); spores 5-8 ym: 6 - 10 ym; stipe: Greater 3 mm: I think no. C. aeruginosa: Strongly roughened hyphea: I´m not sure; centrally attached: only some exemplares; circular: some exemplars; less than 4 mm: Only some smaller exemplars; spores 9 - 13 ym: 6 - 10 ym; stipe less than 3 mm: yes. Personally I think the species nearer to C. aeruginascens but I will change the name to Chlorociboria sp.. Next september I will collect some fungi and will show them to some experts of our mycological working groups. I´m very excited about the results. Best regards--Holleday (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2012 at 22:40:02 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution and quality. I find it valuable to the encyclopedia, as it is a good example of Pointillism and of Maximilien Luce's work.

Articles in which this image appears

Pointillism, Maximilien Luce

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Maximilien Luce

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very large size, good photo of the art. Pine^✉ 11:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see my comment about EV below. Pine^✉ 06:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very nice. I accept the EV for both the artist and style. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sort of looks like a really high ISO camera shot at thumb.JJ Harrison (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Very Impressive. However, I do not think that the EV in either articles is very high. It's placed at the bottom of both articles. Dusty777 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the EV is reasonable for the article Maximilien Luce since it's the only example shown of the artist's work. Pine^✉ 06:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2012 at 22:21:37 (UTC)

Reason

Well executed, high EV for Liocarcinus depurator

Articles in which this image appears

Liocarcinus depurator, Liocarcinus, Portunidae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans

Creator

Lycaon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I also think I'd support the "market" shot; it's a shame the article's so short. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. I also think it's a good one. I would have been glad to expand the article if my English was better and if I knew more about biology. Tomer T (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quite a nice specimen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as author. Lycaon (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the crab itself seems brighter than I'd like but it's a good photo overall and is good for the EV. Pine^✉ 06:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Liocarcinus depurator.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2012 at 14:45:40 (UTC)

Reason

A quite widespread image from American Civil War, which reflects the sorrow of that military conflict.

Articles in which this image appears

Edwin Francis Jemison, Confederate States Army

FP category for this image

People/Military

Creator

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question the image looks like it has swirls and scratches on it. Why are those there? Pine^✉ 05:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2012 at 11:03:23 (UTC)

Reason

Clear image, free license. I just moved this from lower in the article to lead, this is clearer than the previous lead image and as the lead it gets higher EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey Heron just moved up to lead but was already in the article, and Arrocampo Reservoir

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 11:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. But, stable lead image is only a weak sufficient condition for EV in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears to be the best picture available of the species... But, I must say, the technical quality could be higher. Dusty777 01:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusty777, what's your concern about technical quality? Pine^✉ 08:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hrmm... To be honest, I don't remember what I saw... Looking at the picture again, it looks like the technical quality is excellent. I have no idea what I saw. Dusty777 02:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2012 at 09:45:43 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, well executed portrait, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Stephen Wolfram, California Institute of Technology, List of systems scientists

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Stephen Wolfram's PR team/Stephen Faust

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't really see what more we could demand of a portrait like this. (Love the physical version of Wolfram|Alpha's logo in the background.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pine^✉ 11:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What more could you want? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All a little posed, but pretty good. Surprised with the sharpness given the low shutter speed for a portrait. --jjron (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wonderful! Jkadavoor (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Stephen Wolfram PR.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2012 at 15:12:16 (UTC)

Reason

Quite an interesting portrait, and from a style which is underrepresented at FP. Notable artist and high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Juan Gris

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Amedeo Modigliani (the artist was known for paintings and sculptures in a modern style characterized by mask-like faces and elongation of form.)

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. When photographs of him exist, I'm not sure that a piece of artwork which is not-so-reflective of reality (and yes, I'm aware of the philosophical issues with that line) is the best way to represent him. This isn't quite the same as, for instance, Edward I. (Or, for a modern example, Max Stirner.) J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as I see it, images like this are either useful because they a) illustrate the subject of the painting or b) the painting itself is important, eg. particularly reflective of a particular style, or noteworthy of itself. I agree with Mr Milburn that the image's value under a) is strained and the case hasn't been made for use under b). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No attempt at an article on this painting has been made as of yet. I added it to the artist's article as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2012 at 19:01:39 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp, high resolution picture of the famous statue. Valued image in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Manneken Pis, Brussels, Fountain

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

Myrabella

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Notable statue, good EV as lead image. Has a trail of pis, which contributes to the EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Composition not great IMO, with a lot of wasted space below the statue. --Avenue (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the whole fountain should be shown (context shot). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2012 at 12:10:56 (UTC)

Reason

I hope it isn't bad form to nominate an image a third time (previos noms: 1, 2) but clear work was done to improve the image during both nominations and the image received some support (~3.5 supports) and by the end of each nomination no opposes. SVG file, good source. The label "Spain" was removed, but appears in some versions (no idea why) of the thumbnail. If you see it, render the file in another size.

Articles in which this image appears

Second Punic War and Campaign history of the Roman military (contributes strongly); Roman Republic, Po Valley raid Battle of Utica (203 BC) (useful but not essential).

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

William R. Shepherd, original; User:Grandiose SVG version and alterations.

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Contributes excellent EV. I haven't seen a limit anywhere on how many times a picture can be nominated. Dusty777 17:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't feel qualified to actually vote on this or any maps, but it seems unusual to me to have the 10° W and the 20° E longitudes on the left and right hand sides mixed amongst the N latitudes. Is this standard practice? Also wondering about the words in all-caps; again is this standard practice on Wiki? --jjron (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can avoid having the latitude label on the side, if you're going to have it at all (which I have argued in favour of in previous nominations). I don't think it's confusing; they're clearly labelled. All caps is suggsted by the project for seas; in the case of the other areas it is needed to distinguish types of features. Previous nominations attest to repeated comments about the indistinguishably of things from each other and removing the all caps would surely make this much worse. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all the previous noms, but I would have just thought you'd not put those two longitude labels at all, after all they are already labelled at the top. And not confusing? Well maybe not, but I was thinking you'd mislabelled something till I figured out what you'd done, and I'm not a complete idiot. All caps for MILES and KILOMETERS? Nonetheless, I realise the difficulty there must be in distinguishing between things, but I still haven't worked out why some things are in all-caps and others aren't, although to be fair I haven't read the article and tried to match it to the map. However I would have thought there was some standard guidelines for labelling, and MOS:CAPS generally advises against it. Anyway, as I say I simply don't know enough about it, so I'll just shut-up now. :) --jjron (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The map's caption in our Second Punic War article says "Italian cities and Celtic tribes which joined Hannibal after the invasion of Italy are depicted in Blue", but the only things depicted in blue are water features. --Avenue (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2012 at 03:41:49 (UTC)

Reason

Impressive and symbolic image, representing both the importance of Simón Bolivar on an academic level, and as a clear reference to the University, which bears his name.

Articles in which this image appears

Simón Bolívar University

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

JunCTionS (from the Spanish Wikipedia)

• Support as nominator --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Odd angle and the base is cut off. Brandmeister^talk 13:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have to agree with Brandmeister. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2012 at 10:50:54 (UTC)

Reason

This high-quality portrait of academic Gilbert Strang was taken by Wikipedia user Sijothankam.

Articles in which this image appears

Gilbert Strang

FP category for this image

People/Others

Creator

Sijothankam

• Support as nominator --A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's a particularly tight crop at the top... Spencer^T♦C 23:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I like it a lot. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think I have one of this guy's textbooks from a few years ago. Improvements: I would have added a hair light, and not cropped so tight on the top. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This looks likely to be a copyvio. It is credited here to "Samfoto/John Petter Reinertsen". The uploader appears to be someone completely unrelated, an Indian physics student. Their talk page doesn't inspire confidence either. --Avenue (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now listed at WP:PUF. --Avenue (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I was kinda half-expecting this to happen. I think I have found the original photographer's e-mail address, and have fired him a quick message. Hopefully he'll respond soon. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending resolution of copyright issue. --jjron (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - image deleted. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2012 at 11:01:37 (UTC)

Reason

A professional-quality photograph of a child actress whose career, no doubt, has been somewhat based on her appearance. While she is not super-notable, she certainly meets the GNG, and so the article is justified. In addition, she played a significant if small role in Prometheus, so people all over the world are seeing her in the cinema at the moment, whether they realise it or not.

Articles in which this image appears

Lucy Hutchinson (actress)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Gary Hutchinson

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I assume you mean Lucy Hutchinson (actress) above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, she seems a bit cuter here than the lead image in the article above... ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed! J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Avenue (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Extremely soft. Even when downsizing by 50% in height & width, and sharpening, it clearly looks out of focus. Not a huge fan of the composition either, TBH. For a marginal EV LP, especially one where the image will be quickly outdated, I think we need better. --jjron (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2012 at 05:31:47 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality panorama of the city, good EV, from Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Bitola

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Petar Milošević, https://sr.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Google&lang=en&q=user:PetarM

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 05:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not bad, but it's pretty strongly curved at both sides. Shadow of photographer at image left (which could easily be cropped out). If reprocessed more carefully this could be worth reconsideration. --jjron (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2012 at 04:20:15 (UTC)

Reason

The underwing plumage is the most important diagnostic indicator to separate this species from the Short-tailed Shearwater at sea. The out of focus cliffs of Cape Pillar in the distance add some wow in my view.

Articles in which this image appears

Sooty Shearwater

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral the bird is great, but the blurriness of the background gives me a headache. Pine^✉ 06:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Not super-sharp compared to some other images, but good EV showing the underwing plumage if that helps distinguish it from the muttonbird (I like how there's a corresponding image in that article showing the underwing plumage as well, but maybe would be useful to mention that on the image pages). Pretty well done to get the underwings so well lit too, although the lower, I spose it's the left wing, has a patch that's a bit glaringly bright. --jjron (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, pretty much per Jjron. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2012 at 04:11:02 (UTC)

Reason

High quality flight bird of this subtlety attractive seabird. The Southern Fulmar breeds on the coast of Antarctica, moving north during the winter months. We only have a couple of images on Commons for this species.

Articles in which this image appears

Southern Fulmar

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A bit unsharp and noisy at full res, but flying birds aren't easy subjects. Nice isolation from the background, with wing patterns shown nicely. But I like your picture in the article's infobox even more - is there a reason you chose to nominate this one instead? --Avenue (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outside breeding season, this bird would usually be seen at sea. This shot shows the flight plumage, and is therefore quite arguably more useful for identification. I don't think nominating this one necessarily excludes the other though. Also, pixel peeping aside, I think this is a more interesting photo. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the wing pattern, good EV, reasonable clarity. Pine^✉ 06:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Agree with Avenue, a bit soft and noisy, but nice at smaller sizes. Also agree with Avenue about taxobox image, which I would full support as an Alt. --jjron (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good action show, bird is attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2012 at 04:15:23 (UTC)

Reason

This photo makes the species easy to distinguish from the more locally common Buller's Albatross and Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey-headed Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow... I can almost count the feathers on its wings! Dusty777 18:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lovely. Some noise, the tight crop at left, and the light background behind its head detract slightly, but this is still very nice. --Avenue (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks slightly back-focussed - could probably have done with a greater DOF. Also a little tight at the left, as noted above, but overall I think it makes the grade. Not necessarily pertinent to this nom, but could you please do us a favour and inform us if you're nominating species with existing FPs, as to be honest I've lost track of all these similar looking albatrosses, shearwaters, and the like, but I think we need to evaluate them more closely, esp. for EV, when there's an existing FP. --jjron (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. All current noms are new species. I hadn't even seen this or the Fulmar before. . JJ Harrison (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Thalassarche chrysostoma - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2012 at 18:47:32 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, good composition, impressive photo

Articles in which this image appears

Cueva de los Verdes, Lanzarote

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Lviatour

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Wow! --Avenue (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. The puddle reflection is nice in the "pretty picture" stakes, but makes the image a bit confusing, which hurts the EV. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I tend to agree with JJ Harrison about the puddle hurting the EV. The puddle is fascinating, but I can see as to how someone could think the cave is exactly the same on the bottom as on the top. It kind of gives a false impression of the actual cave. Dusty777 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the visual confusion makes you look twice, and helps draw you into the subject. The water is an unusual feature for a lava tube, so emphasising this adds to the picture's EV. --Avenue (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Impressive--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Harrison. Also the caption in the article is rubbish and needs to be improved. Image page could do with a better description too. Its use doesn't really count in the Lanzarote article as it's just one of a billion images in a gallery. --jjron (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the suggested category is wrong too. Should be Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes or possibly Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others. Interiors is for buildings. --jjron (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten the caption (and much of the article). --Avenue (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I don't think the EV suffers much from the reflection, since presumably that's how the tube naturally looks. There's a bit of chromatic aberration in the jumbled shadow/light area at top right, but I think the overall quality of the photo makes up for this minor flaw. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lanzarote 5 Luc Viatour.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2012 at 17:03:39 (UTC)

Reason

Historic and evocative painting, especially since it was done posthumously, with wide usage on enwp

Articles in which this image appears

John F. Kennedy, Aaron Shikler, Presidential portrait (United States), +5

FP category for this image

Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Aaron Shikler

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 17:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Superb reproduction. I can see the variations in the canvas without any pixelation. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adequate quality indeed, nice to see this as a potential FP. Brandmeister t 22:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I'd like to see SteveStrummer's copyright concerns at Commons dealt with first. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice (but unfortunate) catch. I've initiated an RfD on Commons. We should probably suspend further voting here until that RfD is closed. —Eustress ^talk 01:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest renominating if it passes the RfD. Let's not forget, Commons deletions can take months. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support I'm not going to pretend to understand copywrite laws, but if you guys decide it's OK I'll support it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suspect the picture is PD, as an official portrait painted by the same artist of Nancy Reagan is labeled PD. See File:Nancy Reagan official White House portrait.jpg MathewTownsend (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the FFD suggests the same issues apply to other works. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, there are others by him that are PD, e.g. File:Lady Bird Johnson portrait by Shikler, 1978.jpg, File:Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy.gif, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll see how the FFD works out. Naturally, this can't be featured while an FFD is open. It would have to be suspended. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support prov. there isn't a copyright problem. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending resolution of copyright issue. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Promoted File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2012 at 10:09:51 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, lead image for the article, nice color

Articles in which this image appears

Bubble ring

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

Joby on Commons

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 10:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'd so like to support something like this as it's the type of thing we have too little of, but this image doesn't do it for me. I really can't make out any details on the bubble ring, and I think there's too many distractions including the strongly blown highlights behind the ring and all the other little bubbles. TBH I found myself looking at this other image in the article to get a better idea of what I was meant to be seeing in the nominated image. --jjron (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:44:00 (UTC)

Reason

Aesthetically pleasing composition, high quality, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Juselius Mausoleum, List of mausolea, Pori

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

kallerna

• Support as nominator —kallerna™ 12:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks pretty good. The building however, appears to kind of tilt to the left. Also, the picture hasn't been in the article Juselius Mausoleum for the required 7 days per criteria 5. Recommend removing that link until June 14th. Dusty777 02:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. A bit soft. For 6 megapixels, it should have a bit more sharpness IMO, considering it's (I assume) downsampled from the camera's native 12 megapixels. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice setting. It's been in the article for 7 days now. 6MPx is good enough for me and it seems sharp enough - I'd prefer this over a perfectly sharp 1MPx any day.

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2012 at 15:35:41 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution with sharpness and good composition, being nominated for FC status at Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Emu

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

William Warby

• Support as nominator --Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Good level of detail, but I'm not convinced of the EV here. I like the article's lead image better because it shows more of the bird's body. If there's some unusual property of the bird's head that this illustrates then the EV would be higher. Pine^✉ 06:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The bird is so big that full-body shots give you a very small view of the head, so I think a portrait is definitely warranted in the article. This is an excellent portrait. Sharp with nice colours. --99of9 (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A good, clear portrait of an emu, showing a lot of detail. A good illustration for the "Description" section of the article. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2012 at 19:25:02 (UTC)

Reason

Meaningful image, holds impending significance, clarity is great.

Articles in which this image appears

List of Olympic venues in ice hockey, Bolshoy Ice Dome

FP category for this image

2014 Winter Olympics

Creator

Bescker

• Support as nominator --Oakley77 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please fix the FP category. Tomer T (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Will this even remain in the articles once the building is completed and an updated image is uploaded? And FWIW, the description page needs English descriptions for en:wiki, and ideally this should be geocoded as well. --jjron (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it sure would stay. Oakley77 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, where? It would definitely go from List of Olympic venues in ice hockey, and would also go from the infobox in its home article Bolshoy Ice Dome. Given that's a 100 word article, there's not a lot of room for more images, and unless there was a section on construction (which there's not now) it would lack EV. In fact given this dates from April 2011 I suspect it's already rather outdated in terms of what the place now looks like. I realise this is rather second-guessing the whole process, but they do seem valid concerns. --jjron (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, a quick Google image search indicates external construction at least is now finished and indeed this is well and truly out of date. Refer to note above about there needing to be a construction section in the article IMO for this to have sufficient EV. --jjron (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this image has some EV, its composition is cluttered and it doesn't illustrate its subject very clearly. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2012 at 17:53:44 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Hypsiboas crepitans

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Brilliant clarity, always a sucker for nature images. Oakley77 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In some ways it's a bit of a funny angle, but it seems to work. Quality is acceptable; a bit front-focussed I think, but highish DOF manages to carry it over the line. --jjron (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rana platanera - Boana platanera.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2012 at 12:26:46 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high quality, impressive

Articles in which this image appears

Aurelia aurita

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Cnidaria

Creator

Lviatour

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's pretty, but it seems like there's either some motion blur or way too narrow depth of field: most of the image seems out of focus. Also, the image description page mentions that it is "false colour", which I think detracts from the EV. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurry. That's unfortunate because I like this otherwise. False color doesn't bother me if it's used with good reason. Pine^✉ 06:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Procedural oppose. I think this is as good as we can expect given the typical ambient aquarium lighting. Wild specimens will have other problems, e.g. the difficulty of assigning a definite species id. --Avenue (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to oppose based on the process, per Dante Alighieri. I'd probably feel differently if there was evidence of a good faith attempt to incorporate both pictures in the article, not driven solely by the desire to make this picture eligible for FPC. --Avenue (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose. You're the one who added it to the article, and you replaced an existing Featured Picture to do so, with no edit comment. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, sorry, I didn't notice there was an existing FP as a lead image. Really sorry. I withdraw for now. Avenue, I'm quite hurt by your things - "I'd feel differently if there was... a good faith", "not driven solely by the desire to make this picture eligible". Is that really how you think I work? What about some good faith? Tomer T (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry. I'm sure you didn't notice the image you replaced was an existing FP. I saw your actions as representative of a pattern that I feel happens too often here, of thoughtless replacement of images so that a new image can go through FPC. I tend to assume much less good faith when there's no edit summary, but should have thought better of you. --Avenue (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2012 at 12:33:55 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV, FP in Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Swamp Sparrow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Cephas

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral good photo but I think this would have higher EV if it showed the pattern on the bird's back. I'm not sure that this bird is very distinguishable from other birds by viewing it from this angle. Pine^✉ 06:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2012 at 21:09:02 (UTC)

Reason

Well composed, high-resolution image of Kearny, Jersey City, and Manhattan including the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building, the Pulaski Skyway, the Hackensack River, and an industrial area. It has historical interest being from 1978.

Articles in which this image appears

Newark, New Jersey

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Jack Boucher in 1978 as part of the Historic American Engineering Record. Uploaded to Wikimedia by User:NE2

• Support as nominator --Inasilentway (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not convinced this 1978 photo has a lot of current EV for the article Newark, New Jersey, and it could be replaced by a more recent color image. If this photo was illustrating some notable building that no longer exists then it would have higher EV, but the Pulaski Skyway still exists today. Pine^✉ 06:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Have to agree here with Pine, the EV for this picture is for Pulaski Skyway not Newark, and theres several good images of it already on that page.. — raekyt 09:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2012 at 15:47:13 (UTC)

Reason

Many years ago we had a FP of the Walt Disney Concert Hall which was subsequently delisted. Another image failed a couple of noms. Regardless, this is a vast improvement. High resolution, good quality, a rare shot that actually shows the whole building without being cutoff or hugely warped (compare to other images), as well as showing the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion to image right also giving it good EV for Los Angeles Music Center. Admittedly it's a sod of tough place to photograph well, with the curved and highly reflective surface creating both strong highlights and shadows, and its location jammed onto a busy LA street leaving little wriggle room both in terms of getting a suitable location and avoiding excessive traffic, especially for a multi-image pano. Meh; there's some building off in the background.

Articles in which this image appears

Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles Music Center, and Los Angeles, amongst others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

jjron

• Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. How did you get the picture without traffic in front of the building? Dusty777 18:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how jjron did it, but one technique is to take multiple pictures from the same spot, then merge them together in Photoshop, eliminating the cars and/or people (kind of like focus stacking). —howcheng {chat} 17:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was more like extreme patience, monitoring of traffic light cycles, and a very quick trigger finger when I detected a brief respite in traffic. ;) --jjron (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice, but the stitch needs a little work. The vertical lines are way off on the right hand side, so adding vertical control points would not go astray. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, finally got onto this. Have tried to attend to the RHS distortion, hope it satisfies concerns. Also fixed a minor stitching error. I just uploaded over the original as the changes were pretty minor and I think uncontroversial, and it's widely used across multiple Wikis, so lots of work to replace with an edit. --jjron (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately you've introduced (or maybe they were also in the first version - I didn't notice) some stitching errors along the road (follow the white line for example)and at the base of the building. They're minor but fairly obvious because of the linearity. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have fixed what I could see of these (again I've simply uploaded over the top as they're uncontroversial). If you look superclose you might still find something tiny, but it'd probably be pretty anal. After all it's illustrating the concert hall, not Grand Ave. The penalties of having to be too close to the subject for a pano, giving a tight foreground to work with... --jjron (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support assuming the slight tilt is corrected. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support as above, so long as the tilt is fixed. Well done getting a great photo with nothing in the foreground. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns have been addressed. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support as the others. Colin°^Talk 17:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the concerns been adequately addressed? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'd support it now. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Walt Disney Concert Hall, LA, CA, jjron 22.03.2012.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2012 at 01:04:46 (UTC)

Reason

Another of Adam Cuerden's post-retirement restorations. Extremely detailed lithograph, showing how industrialized the city was and thus the origin of the nickname "Steel City".

Articles in which this image appears

History of Pittsburgh's South Side

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Otto Krebs, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --—howcheng {chat} 01:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upstateNYer 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - P. S. Burton (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large image, high level of detail, helpful caption, good EV. Pine^✉ 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No qualms, great scan of a nice image. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pittsburgh, Allegheny & Birmingham.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2012 at 12:28:25 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Père David's Deer

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Mulletsrokkify

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good EV and clarity, and I like the colors. Pine^✉ 06:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Pine. Weak because it's a pretty awkward pose, not helped for details by a narrow DOF for a head on shot, and I don't think the mud-covered feet do a lot for the EV. --jjron (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Agree that the composition is fairly awkward (too frontal, and too much empty space above the deer), and resolution isn't great, but it's quite nice. Interesting to note that under one of the current proposals on FPC Talk (2000px minimum on longest side), this would fall below the minimum resolution requirements. It's very borderline. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as author mulletsrokkify 23:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulletsrokkify (talk • contribs)
• Comment -- The subject matter is good for FP status. Is the subject lighted enough? Could the subject have been more in focus? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2012 at 23:09:26 (UTC)

Reason

Has a Gilded Age quality, style, and appeal; studio photo by Brady-Handy. Williams was Oregon U.S. Senator and U.S. Attorney General during Reconstruction.

Articles in which this image appears

George Henry Williams

FP category for this image

World History

Creator

Retouched Brady-Handy photo. cmguy777

• Support as nominator --Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2012 at 22:21:33 (UTC)

Reason

SVG version of a well sourced map; newly reinvigorated to use standard colours and for other aesthetics. Clear EV in illustrating the battle; good (but not exceptional) level of detail.

Articles in which this image appears

Falaise pocket

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

US DoD; User:Jarry1250 (notified); User:Grandiose.

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• questions What country is this? And is it possible to spell "ST LO" in full? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 23:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern France (assuming that wasn't a rhetorical question?). I've spelled out SAINT-LO in full, not because of the abbreviation per se but the fact our article hyphenates it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sorry Grandiose, but I don't think that this is a FP-standard map. My concerns are: a) the lack of front lines at the northern end of the front is a significant limitation b) only the names of Allied corps are marked on the map, and there's no information about the movements of German units c) the only German unit named is the Seventh Army. For some reason the boundaries of the Allied armies aren't included d) the US Army corps are correctly named using roman numerals, but the British/Canadian corps are named with numbers, which is incorrect (the '30th Corps' is well-known as XXX Corps, for instance). I'd also suggest using different colours to differentiate the British/Canadian/Polish forces (aka the 21st Army Group) and the American forces (12th Army Group) as the poor coordination between the British and American commands was important to this battle, as it prevented the German force from being entirely encircled. I recognise that these limitations are attributable to the original map, and are not of your making. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the difference in numerals is the mapmaker's may of differentiating nationality. Hardly ideal, though. I was looking to see if I could merely append extra information to this map, but the maps I've found contradict each other making this very difficult. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I imagine that's the case (it may have even been the convention in the US Army WW2 official history series from which this is sourced). Using different colours would help get around this problem. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2012 at 05:17:24 (UTC)

Reason

Striking astronomical photobomb

Articles in which this image appears

Transit of Venus, 2012

FP category for this image

Astronomy

Creator

MacNeil Fernandes

• Support as nominator --kencf0618 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose The plane makes it have even less EV, and an amateur photograph of this event will have FAR less EV and quality then any of the NASA photographs of the event I'm sure. Plus it doesn't meet criteria since it's used in a gallery, that and the article is massively over-illustrated and needs seriously thinned, and this image will likely be one that will be removed when that occurs. — raekyt 09:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agreed, the plane adds nothing to our understanding of the subject, it only distracts. It's interesting on some level, but much more suited to Commons than here, where encyclopaedic value comes first. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fuck me, that gallery needs to go. My eyes hurt. Could I suggest a speedy close for a registered user to move on the basis of low EV, use not more than in a gallery, and borderline (if that) resolution? 109.149.78.250 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose for Wikipedia But I suggest the nominator take this to Commons. However, before doing so, upload a much higher-resolution photo (this one has been extremely downscaled), and get rid of the watermark: that's a big no-no! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 06:10:14 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan of a notable artwork; I also think we should have more nudes

Articles in which this image appears

The Pearl and the Wave,

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Paul-Jacques-Aimé Baudry

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT is fine with me too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportSupport alt Good digitalization, although the hips look fatty for me :) Brandmeister^talk 08:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - butt, butt..._{I've always wanted to do that *snicker*} --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I thought this was Wikipedia, not Beavis and Butthead. Does anyone have comments actually related to the quality of the digitization or the artwork? Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. The color in this higher-res version is washed out. The color and lighting (of the photo) seemed significantly better in the original upload. As images of the human form goes, this one isn't terribly good; almost any Bouguereau would be better, for instance, and most are not yet featured. – SJ + 06:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've uploaded alt, but not sure which version is technically more correct. Brandmeister^talk 19:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Annnhhh If there's a better version it should be used; looks like one of my scans. This is the hermaphrodite pic, right? (Just joking.) We do need more nude male paintings, drawings, photos featured. Young 40 somethings would be fun. Sounds like a photo project! CarolMooreDC 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just how widespread is knowledge of the hermaphrodite photo series? I agree, shame we don't have many good ones. It would be nice for someone to get a good image of Michelangelo's David... Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool on Nadar photos! Second scan or color balance definitely better. CarolMooreDC 05:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets featured picture criteria. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt The original appears to have a greenish tinge (fluorescent lighting?) but I haven't seen the painting to compare. Colin°^Talk 20:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Which One? Dusty777 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt per my support above. Brandmeister^talk 17:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously thinking of promoting an alternative with colours that look unnatural (for a painting), oversaturated, and probably do not accurately reflect the colours of a painting of the sea, because someone played with the tools and thought it looked better? Really? Without even trying to check if the changes are actually more right? You know better than the museum who actually owns the painting what the painting looks like? You realise there's this green thing called algae that grows on moist rocks, and sea water tends to be greenish-blue so this scene would be expected to have a lot of green in it? You realise that oil paintings tend to be a little desaturated, not hyper-saturated like the edit? In short: You are making a huge mistake here. Please don't.

Support original. I would think that the museum where the painting resides would know best what it looks like. —howcheng {chat}

Not necessarily. I've seen several instances of museum websites posting reproductions with inaccurate colors, even the prestigious Musée d'Orsay. In some cases the reproductions on their websites are 2nd or 3rd generation from the original. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it too late to simply Oppose this? Seriously, neither of these really look to have realistic colours to me for an artwork of this vintage. The original looks dull and off with greeny skin tones, the alt too cold for an oil painting. I'd tend to agree with SJ's original comment that the original upload looks to have the most likely colouring. If I had to go for one of these it would be the original, but I think it's wrong and we probably should revert to the original small upload, unless someone can do a better colour matching job. But bigger always triumphs, right? --jjron (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2012 at 11:52:09 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Botanischer Garten München-Nymphenburg

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A little dark, but otherwise a nice composition and good detail. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support Although it is a fraction off-center.©Geni 03:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral good color, but this is a little blurry when viewed at full size. Also I wish the photographer would have waited a few more seconds for the people who are walking out of the left frame of the image to leave completely. Pine^✉ 07:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Great composition, symmetrical, blue sky, reflection in water, colourful flowers... "Picture Perfect" for me.Sanyambahga (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent picture.--GoP_T^C_N 08:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jujutacular (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Edificio principal, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-21, DD 04.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2012 at 01:48:55 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution of the rear of the mansion with high architectural detail

Articles in which this image appears

Pittock Mansion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

chmiceli

• Support as nominator --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The picture looks pretty good. It has an excellent composition, the crop is great, and the picture overall is just excellent. However, that tree on the left side of the picture (covering up the mansion) is kind of distracting... I don't think it hurts the encyclopedic value too much though. Dusty777 02:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the criticism and compliments. I was glad the tree didn't all of its leaves. --Chrismiceli (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The composition is too tight in my opinion. The lighting is also a bit harsh. Other than these two issues it is very nice, would gladly support if it can be re-shot to mitigate them. Jujutacular (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate the criticism. This is my first FPC. Unfortunately I was travelling and can't retake, but I will take your input into consideration for future pictures. --Chrismiceli (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to hear you can't re-take! It is good work. I look forward to seeing more FPC nominations from you. Jujutacular (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. A bit tight IMO too, and unfortunate that the trees are obscuring the subject and it is in shadow. Detail otherwise seems good. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The subject matter is FP status worthy. I know from first hand experience that any mansion is difficult to photograph. My concern is the tree on the left side and the shadow area on the lower part of the mansion. Possibly changing the angle and getting the sun to brighten up the mansion would make a better photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I don't like the branches on the left but there may not be anything that the photographer could have done to get a better photo. Also this seems a little out of focus when viewed at full size. Pine^✉ 07:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose -- I wish the photo could have been taken at a different time when the façade was not in shadow. Sanyambahga (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --- I really think you need to get rid of the tree on the left. It really blocks the picture. Otherwise, it is a very good picture Earth8845 —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2012 at 21:27:32 (UTC)

Reason

Good portrait - high quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Cadel Evans

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Kyro

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A good photo. I like the reflection in his eye wear, one can see the crowd. My concern is that the lighting could be improved, possibly a quick adjustment with a photo editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Background is somewhat unfortunate/cluttered but the lighting on the subject is (IMO) quite nice with good skin tones. However would prefer an action shot and image quality is not great (mediocre sharpness + noise in background - although the latter could be fixed relatively easily in PS...) --Fir0002 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have the chance to get some decent action shots of the pro cyclists during the Olympics, as the road race one of the few events viewable for free by the public. However, the legality of doing so is very up in the air, as apparently any any all Olympics-related photography is prohibited except for personal use (not even allowed to be 'broadcast' on your personal Facebook page, etc apparently!). I'm going to have to see if they can enforce it for the free, public events taken from a public space though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Landscape orientation doesn't seem the right choice here. —howcheng {chat} 23:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as I have no idea what this guy does, from looking at the photo. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2012 at 17:02:39 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Liocarcinus navigator, Liocarcinus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans

Creator

Lycaon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High quality educational image --Fir0002 03:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pine^✉ 07:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Only middling sharpness though. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--GoP_T^C_N 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Liocarcinus navigator.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2012 at 17:11:33 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

L'Umbracle, Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment is this really ultrawide angle?©Geni 03:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --- This is a good wide angle photo and the couple on the path adds perspective. The sky is good without any sunflares. The photo captures attention. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Has a nice sense of space and has nice detail but not a fan of the lighting with much of the foreground in shadow --Fir0002 03:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a note that I changed the caption to remove the comments about "panorama" and "ultrawide angle". Pine^✉
• Support -- per Cmguy777. Sanyambahga (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--GoP_T^C_N 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport. Tricky mosaic panorama to stitch as it was shot hand-held and there are probably thousands of cross beams to line up. Shows the interior view well. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Spectacular at full size. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:L'Umbracle, Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2012 at 04:01:20 (UTC)

Reason

This is a unique war memorial commemorating a proverbial "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" in American society: Benedict Arnold. The monument takes its name from various version of the following story: When Benedict Arnold was leading the forces of the King against his former compatriots in Virginia, among his prisoners was a certain plucky and witty officer, who, in answer to Arnold's question, "What will the Americans do with me if they catch me?" replied, "They will cut off the leg which was wounded when you were fighting so gloriously for the cause of liberty, and bury it with the honors of war, and hang the rest of your body on a gibbet." As a unique memorial to a war hero I thought I would nominate this here and see if anyone else thought it would make a good FP.

Articles in which this image appears

Boot Monument, Benedict Arnold ,Battles of Saratoga

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Americasroof

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 04:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I believe the photo subject matter is worthy of FP status. The photo, I believe, would be improved under better lighting and that the base was cleaned off. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Poor image quality (sharpness/detail) and poor composition (framed from standard head height (snapshotty) and camera is not properly centred resulting in non-symmetrical/skewed verticals) --Fir0002 03:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Pine^✉ 07:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Its a lazy shot. I expect the photographer to lower himself to the level of the memorial and also position himself symmetrically in front of it. Sanyambahga (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sanyambahga. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2012 at 01:35:57 (UTC)

Reason

Well, it meets criteria and is a strikingly captivating image.

Articles in which this image appears

Bo Xilai, Dalian, List of cities in the Far East by population

FP category for this image

Dalian

Creator

Julianbce

• Support as nominator -- Oakley77
• Speedy close. While the image is striking, at 800x533 pixels it does not meet the minimum size criterion. (The EXIF data suggest that this was originally captured with an EOS 30D; there should be an 8 megapixel original.) Though it's difficult to tell at this resolution, I suspect that there may also be sharpness issues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Agree, the author should upload the original size if he would like it to be considered, but I sense there are some problems with blown highlights. I'd still like to see the higher resolution version though! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Too small. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Dusty777 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Closed. Failed to meet criteria. Dusty777 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2012 at 09:51:45 (UTC)

Reason

featured in wiki commons [2], good frame, nice shot

Articles in which this image appears

Red-necked Avocet

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --al (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Already an FP. Brandmeister^talk 22:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waht you mean FP?al (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FP=Featured Picture. Tomer T (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that bird is a FP in en wikipedia, I should say that is not a FP in en.W.al (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Here's the previous nomination. Sorry. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why doesn't this picture have category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English through Hidden categories? al (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. It does have the Featured Pictures category. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Dusty777 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Closed. Already a Featured Picture. Dusty777 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2012 at 14:13:15 (UTC)

Reason

First of all, this is an impressive and high quality picture. But more importantly, this is a very rare, high educational value picture, as the species of Ecnomiohyla rabborum is considered critically endangered and believed to be extinct in the wild. In the time of shooting this picture there were only two known specimens of this species, both males, that were kept in the Atlanta Botanical Garden. Nowadays only one known specimen is left.

Articles in which this image appears

Ecnomiohyla rabborum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Brian Gratwicke

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Out of focus nearer eye is a little jarring at full size. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cool--GoP_T^C_N 07:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with JJ but more with GOP. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for similar reasons as JJ Harrison. Pine^✉ 05:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2012 at 07:53:11 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, resolution (>15mp). Few Indian FPs

Articles in which this image appears

India Gate

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Visible dust spots on the top left and top right corners. Sanyambahga (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The gate is carefully framed but slightly off for symmetry and its really just a cluttered-lower-third, tourist-style snapshot. Sky colour with evidence of smog in the background also doesn't appeal. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Per Plutoniums concerns. Dusty777 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I thought it was a bit tourist-snapshotty, but it's got impressive resolution. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (re above): I would expect featured pics to fulfill rather more (and varied) criteria than that. Good resolution is a basic requirement for this class of candidate photographs. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noone had mentioned the resolution already, I was adding it to the list of pros for this image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2012 at 04:04:35 (UTC)

Reason

High quality scan, restoration of File:Mill Children in Macon.jpg

Articles in which this image appears

Child labour

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Lewis Hine, restored by User:Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Jujutacular (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original photo seems to have focus problems, but this photo has high EV for the article including historic value. Pine^✉ 07:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Its use in Industrial Revolution is anachronistic. Yomangani^talk 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be a comment more appropriate for that article's talk page. Or do you believe that the encyclopedic value is insufficient because of this? Jujutacular (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I would have removed from it the article if it hadn't been listed in the nomination. I've hoicked it out now. Yomangani^talk 10:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it possible to fix the top corners somehow?--GoP_T^C_N 07:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did take a look at doing that. Ultimately I felt like that would decrease the authenticity of the image, as this is the way the photo was originally presented. Jujutacular (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic composition! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2012 at 21:47:47 (UTC)

Reason

Following the previous nomination, I've changed the colour scheme after consultation with Avenue. I've also tweaked the Saddlebag lake area which I hope should now be correct. I firmly believe that the "resolution" is sufficient that the image adds significant encyclopedic value to the article.

Articles in which this image appears

Cathedral Peak Granodiorite

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

User:Grandiose based on work by the USGS

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Saddlebag Lake area looks fine now. Some minor quibbles:

• The border between the Cathedral Peak Granodiorite and the area below containing the "Mt Lyell" label seems untidy (around x=391px, y=303px). It look like the CPG is overprinting not just the line marking the border, but a small part of the other deposit (Washburn Lake Suite?).
• The "YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK" label seems to obscure the CPG a bit too much IMO, especially its relationship with the TIS enclave near Tuolumne Meadows.

--Avenue (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both things corrected (I could work out a way to keep "Yosemite National Park" at a decent size without obscuring something, so I've moved it off the map itself). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Much improved from the original nomination, this has good EV in our Cathedral Peak Granodiorite article. There's still some room for improvement, especially with the palette, but it's one of the best geologic maps I've seen on Wikipedia, and I believe it meets the FP criteria. The caption seemed a bit terse; I've tried to improve it.--Avenue (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. Dusty777 17:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--GoP_T^C_N 18:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Map of Cathedral Peak Granodiorite.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2012 at 18:16:20 (UTC)

Reason

Impressive photo with high EV, as it gives a good sense of what is like visiting this memorial. FP in Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Metoc

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose No sense of the scale of this memorial, which is the whole point of it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Aaadddaaammm: without illustrating the scale of this memorial the image has limited EV. A photo from the 'ground' level of the memorial looking through the pillars might be worthwhile though, as this is a key part of the experience. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Withdraw. You're right. Tomer T (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Dusty777 02:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by Nominator Dusty777 02:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2012 at 09:23:27 (UTC)

Reason

A vector version of a map by William R. Shepherd - a good pedigree. Much better readability and dare I say aesthetics than the original (I had to look up some of the labels while making it). A map of London at this time period is obviously an essential feature of the History of London page; given that we don't have maps for hundreds of years before or after (that I can find) seems to contribute strongly to the summarised version at London. The spellings are Shepherd's, which is at least verifiability if not truth.

Articles in which this image appears

History of London, London, City of London, Watling Street, Lower Marsh (all replaced raster version).

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

William R. Shepherd, User:Grandiose

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure I agree on the aesthetics, but that aside, there are several omissions/errors in the labels: St Martin Outwich is shown as St Martin Oubwich, Elsing Spital is shown as Rising Spital(!), St Helen's Priory of Nuns is missing, Lambeth moor is clearly rendered as one word whereas in the original there is some room for doubt, the numbering scheme in the key is all to cock after 31, and the labels for 35,36, and 37 are missing from the map. Yomangani^talk 12:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems now corrected; I really don't think Lambethmoor is two words on the original. The spacing is identical to moorfields and internally. I spent ages trying to work out what "Elsing" was, had trouble finding anything that matched on Google. Shows how unclear the original is. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Elsing was the founder of the hospital. Yomangani^talk 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're also missing a church symbol for St Boltolph Aldgate. Yomangani^talk 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both corrected. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV. Dusty777 19:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As it is it looks more like a map of the greenery around London than London itself. I would make the city darker and the green lighter. Note how on the original the streets are much better visible. Also Lambethmoor seems to be the most important thing on the map as it is emphasized both by the dark colour and the largest font size. Otherwise very happy to see good work being done on city maps! --ELEKHH^T 08:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2012 at 13:17:39 (UTC)

Reason

I'm pitching this as a late-in-the-day alternative to the file I withdrew the nomination for earlier, File:Falaise Pocket map.svg. It would replace that file in Falaise pocket if promoted. It includes further details that NickD flagged up as necessary earlier; the numerals are now consistent and different (arbitrary) colours used for constituent parts of the Allied force.

Articles in which this image appears

Would be Falaise pocket

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

User:Grandiose, User:Jarry1250 (intermediate), US military (data)

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments While this is a further improvement, I don't think that my comments on the previous nomination are all addressed, I'm afraid. My comments on this version are: a) the map I mentioned on my talk page (which I think you've drawn on - it's map 17 here for the benefit of other editors) should allow you to extend the Allied front line to the coast b) The names of the British and Canadian corps remains inconsistent - during the initial set of arrows they're in roman numerals, while in the second set they're back to numbers c) the US Army corps should have 'US' added to their titles much as the nationalities of the British and Canadian units are marked - this is a hangover from the original source, and it's not NPOV (especially as the not-US force in Normandy at this time was about the same size as the US force) d) what's the 'group army' on the northern/coastal edge of the German front? e) 21st Army Group appears to be shown as 20th Army Group on the dividing line between the two allied army groups f) map 15 in the US Army official history linked above should allow you to fill in the German unit locations at the start of this operation, which are currently missing. That said, this is both a significant improvement over the previous version which was nominated and a huge improvement over the original map. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further consideration, I'd also suggest that you change the colour of the line dividing the First Canadian and Second British Army to blue - I see what you were aiming at with using the different colour, but I think that it adds complexity. It might also be possible to mark the 17 August Allied front line to the left margin using the maps in the above reference, though things seem to have become pretty fluid by this time (the US Army was advancing east at top speed, and not worrying much about maintaining a cohesive front line). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2012 at 10:12:05 (UTC)

Reason

Engaging photo, good composition and quality, high resolution, high EV

Articles in which this image appears

L'Oceanografic, City of Arts and Sciences

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And support alt Tomer T (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - That yellow... thing, in the lower left hand corner. That's awfully jarring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I really like about this picture. That's what making it so special and dramatic. Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yellow rock on the left is distracting. Can you crop? Pine^✉ 05:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I don't think it should be cropped. Tomer T (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (original) version without cropping. Pine^✉ 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per above, I think this needs to get cropped. It appears to be FP quality, it just that the rock is distracting. Dusty777 22:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, without the intention of hurting or causing any fuss, I want to say I think you think in a fixated manner. Ask yourself a honest question: does this "yellow thing" really hurts the composition? What do you really mean by "distracting"? Does it detracts in any way from the main object - the Oceanografic? Does anyone learn about it less? If you want to consider the cropped alternative - you can have a look on it (I think the current has far more better composition). Just as a side note, the picture was elected fifth in the Constructions gallery in last year's POTY. Tomer T (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the crop. Pine^✉ 09:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt. Pine^✉ 08:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not too fussed about crop or no crop, but I don't think it's significantly distracting either, the intention was to frame it using the rock. I've just uploaded an edit over the top of the original with 'better' processing of the extreme highlights. Previously, the foreground rock was borderline overexposed, but I've managed to recover the highlights and I think it looks better now. Doesn't seem like it will persuade anyone though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anwyay, although I prefer the uncropped version, I added also the cropped one as a nomination. Tomer T (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt I'm sorry Tomer, but I cannot honestly say that the rock in the un-cropped version isn't distracting. I personally think it takes heavily away from the main subject. Dusty777 03:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either. Still have a preference for the original FWIW. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's two or three discontinuities in the inner curve of the building towards the upper right of the main face that look like stitching errors. Can this be fixed, or be confirmed that these are building faults rather than image faults? --jjron (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending reply to my above query, with preference to Alt. If I was hanging one on my wall it would be the Original, for WP I think the Alt serves better. The Alt does feel a little cramped at the bottom, but I think mainly due to sitting beside the original with heaps of foreground; still a shame it can't be cropped with a bit more water. The Alt also fixes a minor tilt I believe, though we probably should re-crop from the re-edited original. Reflections in the windows are a bit offputting, but I guess unavoidable. Yeah, yeah, we're maybe getting overfussy here. And just curious. You took this in 2007, uploaded in 2009, but never nominated it here. Any reason? --jjron (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I guess there are a lot of photos that might be borderline FPs that I've never nominated. I occasionally look back through my 'portfolio' and find decent images that I never got around to processing and uploading at the time, like this one that I took on the same day as this one, but only got around to uploading it when I stumbled on it again. It's not overly spectacular as a photo (and was a massive pain to align all of the steel beams!), but I think it illustrates the subject fairly well and could be worth a chance. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was curious largely because it's been a Commons FP since 2010, but of course I note now that you didn't nominate it there. I do like that other one, a bit shady along the ground, but nice lines and probably worth a nom at some point. Re this one, can you see the discontinuities I asked about above? --jjron (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding discontinuities, I don't see what you mean exactly. If you're talking about the slight wavering edge of the glass panels, that appears to be present in the original RAW files too, so not much I can do about poor workmanship. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not the panels, it's on the white surround. Look for that window at image upper right that has the reflection of a light post or camera or something in it. Where that pane joins the white surround at the bottom the curve stops being smooth, and a similar thing a little lower down. Elsewhere the curve is pretty smooth. Oh, and only just noticed. There's some pretty prominent stitching errors across the row of window panes fourth row down from the top, about a quarter way up them, heading from the centre to image left. I can see four pretty obvious errors there on the verticals, and one small one on the horizontal at the bottom of that row in the centre. --jjron (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I should have been more specific too, but the weird misalignment of of the glass panels and the white surround is what I was talking about when I said it was present in the originals and is not a stitching fault. I can see one significant stitching fault in the glass further down. It should be fairly simple to fix, but I'm not sure what you're seeing of the others as I can't see any other faults. If they're there, they seem to be so minor (perhaps just one pixel of misalignment?) to be almost impossible to really do anything with. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough, as I said I wasn't sure if it was stitching or not. The ones across the glass would be more than a pixel, they're not huge, but become more noticeable once you've seen them (there's four almost in a line on four consecutive joins between the panes, around roughly 2100 pixels from the top on the original). At a 50% image downsize they become close to invisible unless you know they're there. Could be tricky to fix. And just noticed two more on the next two panels, a little higher up about 2000 pixels from the top just above the top of that tallest reflected building, but they would be only about a pixel out, really tiny. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:L'Oceanografic, Valencia, Spain 2 - Jan 07-cropped.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2012 at 23:32:53 (UTC)

Reason

This image shows the mating ritual of James's Flamingo, thought to be extinct until rediscovered in 1956. The ritual is described in some detail in the article. This also is one of the most popular wildlife images on Flickr.

Articles in which this image appears

James's Flamingo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Pedros Szekely

• Support as nominator --Samsara (FA • FP) 23:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Low resolution and not particularly sharp even then, but a fantastic demonstration of behaviour which I think compensates for technical deficiencies. Funny, the caption describes a mating ritual in which the female walks away and the male follows, but which could equally describe the female being the unwilling victim of sexual harassment. Ahh, nature. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Good color and posture of the flamingos in their mating ritual adds enough interest to the photo for FP status. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Per Diliff --Fir0002 03:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support good EV and colors, size is ok, but clarity could be better. Pine^✉ 07:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I think the saturation has been messed with. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An edit could address this, unless highlights have been blown as a result... (not sure, haven't checked) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The quality is poor. Kinda soft. Dusty777 17:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per dusty. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:James's Flamingo mating ritual.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2012 at 20:58:36 (UTC)

Reason

High quality photo.

Articles in which this image appears

Phidippus audax, arthropod eye

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

Opoterser

• Support as nominator --Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love phidippus, and this image is high quality. Rhonalex (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- An incredible shot! How did the spider get a green backdrop? One can see the reflection in what appear to be the spider's four eyes. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support impressive photo of something that size, adequate EV. Pine^✉ 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very yes! Almost good enough resolution to read the text on the rim of the camera lens in the reflections of the eyes :D -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I have added this to the Arthropod eye article. Would appreciate if someone could check my caption to make sure it's accurate; I read the Phidippus audax article but I am unfamiliar with the species in general. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does "Very yes!" mean Support? You should probably clarify for the closer. Dusty777 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  *sigh* yes.... -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Tiny size and easily reproducible with the right equipment. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Impressive. Excellent quality despite the rather small size, good EV. Dusty777 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I like the image and, while the resolution is small, I don't have an issue with this. My problem is with the images EV. The current lead image far better shows the creature, this one just shows far too little. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree the EV is borderline for the species, I added the image to the arthropod eye article, where I believe it has much higher EV. Would you reconsider for this article? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I agree with Peripitus.--GoP_T^C_N 14:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now--GoP_T^C_N 11:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Support This is what people expect to see as FP. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Phidippus audax male.jpg --Julia\^talk 21:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 12:02:48 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Lobomycosis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Benjamint444

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Noise throughout the picture. Kinda soft. Not that great of quality. Dusty777 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not of sufficient quality IMO. 86.177.108.61 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the quality is better than I was expecting, and it's EV is through the roof. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral seems to have decent EV and image quality, but the use in that article could be made more prominent. Pine^✉ 05:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 11:22:27 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Château de Chantilly

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jebulon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A nice picture, good enough clarity. Oakley77 (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Oakley77 Jkadavoor (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure how the EV is effected by the fact that the view is essentially the "rear" of the property. Admittedly it is quite an impressive rear and it's rather hard to get a decent picture of the front as the approach is almost at right angles and rises to the level of the first floor. Yomangani^talk 12:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a free standing building with four façades, so it cannot be captured with a single shot. Hence we can have multiple FPs, including one from this angle. --ELEKHH^T 07:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose At full size looks like it's been overprocessed. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per Aaadddaaammm and Yomangani. Pine^✉ 05:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not bad, but IMO it's also not good enough for FP. Standard for architectural shots is very high (thanks to Diliff!) and here we have a single frame image with average sharpness/definition when a panorama would have been quite easy to do and would have improved resolution vastly. Also a better choice of composition/angle and lighting would have given the shot some much needed wow factor - eg [3]. It's a beautiful subject and the shot could clearly be improved --Fir0002 05:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on this particular file, but I wouldn't refer to the standards of another user when assessing a file - among Wikipedia's best work is to be taken in a more narrow reading than that - "best examples of a given subject". That's the only comparative criterion; the others would require changing the criteria. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Yes it lacks wow despite the good subject, in part because of the not so beautiful bridge, but still provides a good overview. --ELEKHH^T 07:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 11:12:40 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and quality

Articles in which this image appears

Vaux-le-Vicomte

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jebulon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - all the contrails somewhat rob it of its 17th-century ambiance. Yomangani^talk 01:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose not a big fan of the composition and too much space on the left. --GoP_T^C_N 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral There's nothing so wrong with it, it just doesn't scream FP at me. The distracting foreground flowers and it's a little bit soft at full size. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose soft, and colors seem muted. Pine^✉ 05:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 09:39:34 (UTC)

Reason

First of all, this is an impressive and high quality picture. Featured picture on Wikimedia Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque, Tile

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

مانفی

• Support as nominator --al (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Seems quite soft/blurry at 100%, possibly it was mis-focussed because the shutter speed of 1/100th should be fast enough, and the aperture of f/10 should be ok (unless it was taken with a P&S camera with small sensor, in which case it could be diffraction-limited). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FYI the 12MP original photo is File:Iran Tiles temp.JPG and this is a 9MP crop with perspective/alignment/rotation distortion fixed in Lightroom (a process which adds to the softness). I agree it isn't as sharp as one might hope, but looks good if you downsize to 5MP, say. However, I'm not convinced the article-EV is sufficient. It is in a gallery in the Mosque article, and although it is in the lead of tile, it is easily replacable there. Colin°^Talk 12:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The composition is suberb. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question what are the grilles in the middle of the image? I think the caption should give more detail about the subject of this photo. Pine^✉ 05:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• answer There is grille-like at A-shape and rectangular-shape one the heart of picture which have lots of holes through both. al (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2012 at 03:02:16 (UTC)

Reason

Certainly a, uh, diverse image, one that displays an inside look of the world's most isolated country.

Articles in which this image appears

North Korea, Kim Il-sung

FP category for this image

North Korea

Creator

yeowatzup

• Support as nominator --Oakley77 (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As stated on the image information page: "Warning: The subject of this image is believed to be protected by copyright." Does that make this a fair-use image? If so, it would be ineligible for FP. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To follow up, the copyright disclaimer on the image page I believe refers to usage off Wikipedia, any usage within the WikiMedia project is okay. Also, if it doesn't, how do you look up North Korean copyright laws, it is impossible. Oakley77 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of a comment is "how do you look up North Korean copyright laws, it is impossible"? You find out their copyright law exactly the same way you'd find out the copyright law of any country; by looking up the legislation on their website. In this case, the relevant part is Article 32 ("도서관, 문헌고, 박물관, 기념관 같은 곳에서 저작물을 보존, 진열, 열람, 대출용으로 복제할 경우" - "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner … When a copyrighted work in a public place is copied"). The issue here isn't freedom of panorama, it's derivative work—that is, although we have the consent of the photographer who photographed the mural, we don't have the consent of the artist who painted the mural. Mogism (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To my mind, the fair-use question is moot, since this is a scratchy and poor-quality image of dubious EV. Oppose. Mogism (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - When a painting is painted in the side of a wall, it sends to be scratchy (I believe it is). Also, its importance and cultural value is great enough to undermine the clarity. Oakley77 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still oppose. I don't know where you're getting "importance and cultural value" from; this is a generic reproduction of Kim's official portrait set against an absolutely standard "smiling workers" background, of the type one can see thousands of in any dictatorship. I genuinely can see no EV to this. Mogism (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a poor quality reproduction of the image (aside from quality issues, it also appears to be slightly tilted or off-centre). Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]