Comment: Tony, it's not the camera that makes a picture FP worthy. Even photos taken with smartphones can be (and probably have been) promoted. It's the EV, the composition, sufficient quality and the "wow" factor that make a picture featured! --Janke | Talk10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the EV should be clear. For this game, he was the star of the game. Thus, a picture of him is probably the best picture we could have to depict the game. One of him with the award in hand makes the point clear.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have nomminated a lot of sports photos that have wow factor for sports fans, but don't seem to have enough wow factor for photography buffs. Furthermore, very little of what I see in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport (e.g. none of the first 8 pictures there right now) has a wow factor to me. They are mostly boring photos of high quality, so I don't know what to think of that element.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It may well be the best photo possible under the circumstances, and it's plenty useful I'm sure, but overhead "from the stands" shots of players always have an amateurish snapshot feel to me. It's also underexposed. – Juliancolton | Talk03:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Julian's comments above. This is certainly a useful photo, but the composition is not of FP standard. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a fine photo, but I haven't decided how I feel about the harsh sunlight and relatively straightforward composition. In the meantime... there's a dust spot in the sky about one-third of the way inward from the left. – Juliancolton | Talk04:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a nice picture, but I feel like the foreground is too blurry, especially above the bridge itself. Maybe blurry is the wrong word, but it just doesn't seem feature worthy to me. Goveganplease (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Well, there's a gradual curve or arch to the bridge deck, but I don't know how unusual that might be. For a modern box girder bridge it seems reasonably nice-looking, but the overall composition is rather plain and static. I'm skeptical about EV and visual interest for Main Page readers. Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While it's well above size requirements, the sharpness of the image doesn't seem to be exceptional; and I don't think it depicts one of the most notable things about this bridge - its horizontal curve, which is shown much better from above, as in File:Kylesku_Bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_53877.jpg, or either of the photos on this external page. It's a perfectly fine photo, but our standards for landscapes are justifiably very high, as they are the most reproducible type of photo. TSP (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TSP. There's nothing at all wrong with this photo, which is well executed and useful, but I agree that the geograph.org photo indicates that it wasn't taken from a position which best shows its features - which are mentioned in the article which notes that it was designed to blend in with the landscape. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose -- The left part of the image looks overexposed and subsequently adjusted to look less so - details lost in highlights. --Janke | Talk06:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 20:40:46 (UTC)
Original – A Doppler on wheels image of a tornadic thunderstorm near La Grange, Wyoming (USA) captured during the VORTEX2 project. In the velocity image on the left, Blues/green represent winds moving towards the radar, and reds/yellows indicate winds moving away from the radar. The reason that some of the darker blues contain red/yellow within them is a trait known as Aliasing, where the winds are moving faster than the radar can detect. In the reflectivity image on the right, the main body of the storm can be seen, with the appendage on the bottom of the storm being a hook echo, which is associated directly with the tornado, and the tornado circulation itself can be seen as the doughnut like shape in the later part of the animation.
Reason
High quality, high EV, and adds significantly to its article.
Support – high-quality and high-resolution animation of what is sometimes called the most thoroughly documented tornado in history. I'll always be amazed by the "eye" of the tornado on display here. – Juliancolton | Talk23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only other image in the DoW article is a 0.17mp photo of a vehicle carrying the instrument. Do you genuinely believe that's a better illustration of the technology in question? – Juliancolton | Talk22:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't question my integrity. Question my votes by all means, but do try to be polite. Doppler on Wheels is a truck-based system. The article is about the mobile system. The picture I refer to illustrates the truck-based system well. The size is of image is irrelevant, that image is not up for FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue the article is as much about the project's findings and research as its infrastructure and logistics. It certainly should be, even if not now. – Juliancolton | Talk02:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a system photograph and an output image would fall under two different scopes (compare Commons' VI). Both would be acceptable to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this supposed to be animated? If yes, why not just have a video and thus provide a better approximation of the output? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 and Mattximus: A video form already exists: File:05june-dow7-wide2.ogv. I just find it to be rather unfulfilling in comparison to the image, especially with the reduced quality of the video compared to the image (click to play the video thumbnail and you'll see what I mean). With either form you have to click twice to animate at full resolution/quality, and given that the image provides better quality in a thumbnail I find the image form to be more practical. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)12:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 09:51:23 (UTC)
Original – A composite image of a young male proboscis monkey learning to jump
Reason
High EV. We observed the adults in a family of proboscis monkeys jumping between these two trees. They went round and round, repeating the jump. Over a period of 15 minutes, the adults encouraged the youngsters to make the jump. This young male was one of the last to commit. Very positive voting for Commons FP. Image voted into second round of Commons Picture of the Year.
Comment: one of the oldest man-made objects featured... We obviously need to feature older objects, such as spear points, neolithic tools, etc. Any good candidates??? --Janke | Talk05:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping is always a subjective matter which is why I try to upload the full image before cropping. If I made a wider crop, there would be many objecting: "too much tree trunk". It shouldn't really be an issue for FP. Also, the way that Wikipedia places images in the infobox means that a 'thin' portrait style displays very well and enhances the article - the whole idea behind the FP criteria. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see from the commons nomination that my opinion is in the minority. And agree with the subjectivity of it all. It is a very nice image and good EV, and good lighting. Bammesk (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 14:08:31 (UTC)
Original – The Village or Black-headed weaver (Ploceus cucullatus bohndorffi). Males build their nests in hope that a female will be impressed by their skill. This bird in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda should have no problems attracting a mate.
Reason
Illustrates detail of nest very clearly. FP on Commons.
I'd not seen the article you mention @J Milburn:. The article for the Yellow-backed weaver (a different species) was incorrect named black-headed weaver and my link went to it. I've now renamed the article. Do you think it should be the main picture? I've added the image to the page Ploceidae. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2017 at 14:51:54 (UTC)
Original – The 1901 Easter gift from Russian Czar Nicholas II to his wife Alexandra, one of the Fabergé eggs
Reason
SVG is freely licensed, is W3C valid, contains no rasters, and is a highly accurate representation of the actual egg (of which there are currently no freely licensed images anywhere on the Internet— at the moment this is the only freely licensed image of this egg in existence). This image is based on a series of different photographs of the egg, all from the Royal Collection. Egg itself is out of copyright.
Comment Well I initially thought this is a stunning image, but it isn't anything like the real thing is it? Not from the photos on Google anyway. Colours seem to be wrong and details are incorrect too, such as the basket handle. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. SVG strikes me as inappropriate for this kind of thing. I love your diagrams, but for only representing a physical object it's lacking. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I wondered if the image might not get this response. I tried to emphasize that there are no freely licensed images of this object available, and that my drawing is the only such image now out there. Yes, a photo would be better... But we don't have a photo, and no freely licensed photos exist. So I made this image, which is quite close (how is the handle wrong? I said I was taking suggestions). It isn't that I am suggesting we make this a featured picture instead of a photograph of the real thing. I am suggesting that there isn't anything for it to be compared to that is freely licensed. If we are going to have a criterion that "SVG images should only depict non-specific objects," shouldn't we say that somewhere? It's fine (though disappointing) if it's true. If we ever got a freely licensed image of the real thing I'd be glad to abdicate this one. But based on the stated existing criteria, I thought this might be a genuine candidate. I guess SVGs just can't cut it sometimes. KDS4444 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but there is a long history of rejecting images that have glaring flaws (this is a great illustration, but it's still an illustration) if a better one could conceivably be created. At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20170329 MCDAAG Michael Porter Jr. MVP, for example, we had a technically competent picture: crisp, in focus, reasonably good contrast and lighting. However, reviewers agreed that the image fell short of FP quality, and that a much better image was possible.
Chris, my understanding for why the M. volans illustration was rejected was because we (finally) had an actual photograph of it which, as a photograph, necessarily took precedence. We have no photograph of the Basket of Flowers egg. Someday we might, who knows? But we do not now and there is no reason to expect one to be offered up anytime soon (the Royal Collection does not freely license its images, and access to the egg for quality/ professional photographic purposes is otherwise rather limited). I created a pretty good SVG version of it, one I thought worthy of consideration as a featured picture on its own grounds. But there you have it: it is not a diagram, it is only a very complex imitation of one (that took me nearly three weeks to put together! Amen!). But all I can do now is let it go, which I have done. In the mean time I have created a much less complex and much less time-consuming diagram of a chicken egg which I have just now nominated for FP consideration (see above). The good news is that it is a diagram! KDS4444 (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It goes without saying, that despite not succeeding in FP, the images are very useful in the articles, if no real photos are available with a free license. Thus, thanks, KDS444! --Janke | Talk08:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2017 at 21:58:46 (UTC)
Original – The Josephine Shaw Lowell Memorial Fountain in Bryant Park, New York, frozen over in December 2016.
Reason
It's a nice fountain during the rest of the year, but in the winter, when frozen over like this, I think it's particularly striking. Here, taken on one of the coldest nights of the year, to me it almost looks like something out of a fantasy film. It's a Quality Image on Commons and there's encyclopedic value in that it's a good image of a notable fountain (Josephine Shaw Lowell Memorial Fountain) at, in my opinion, its most visually interesting.
Support – I thought about the nighttime lighting issue, but those lights shining on the ice make for an interesting composition – and the darkness reduces the distraction of a cluttered background. Sca (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – leaning to support (after 7 days), but I like to see the image file description list a reference or source link, one that can serve as a basis for the drawing. Also isn't category Sciences/Biology a better fit? Bammesk (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination and will renominate after the 7-day period. File now has sources given in its description. KDS4444 (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just browsing when I came across this image. It appears to be quite a well framed and high resolution image of a UNESCO World Heritage site. What do you think? Featured picture on wiki commons.