Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 06:03:43 (UTC)
Original – Astronaut Roger Chaffee working as capsule communicator (CAPCOM) during the Gemini 3 mission.
Reason
Especially considering when this photo was taken, this is a high resolution photo with the subject set nicely in focus. This photo shows an astronaut in a somewhat unnatural state; they are working as CAPCOM instead of working in space. It is verifiable through NASA sources. There is an accurate description in English.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 06:35:08 (UTC)
Original – The Lenin, a Soviet era nuclear-powered icebreaker, was commissioned in 1957 as the world’s first nuclear-powered civilian vessel and surface ship. Decommissioned in 1989, the Lenin is permanently moored in Murmansk as a floating museum.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2016 at 09:19:55 (UTC)
Original – Kilmainham Gaol main hall, Victorian wing.
Reason
High quality image showing hall, walkways, and cells, and the airy nature of the hall due to the large bright skylight. 2016 marks the centenary of the Easter Rising. Many Irish revolutionaries, including the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising, were imprisoned and executed in this prison by the British.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2016 at 01:50:49 (UTC)
Original – Philippe Chaperon's set design for Act 1, Scene 2 of Giuseppe Verdi's Aida, from the original 1871 Cairo performance.
Reason
Historical records of the first production are very valuable by their nature. The crop was done to allow me to carefully fix the edges; the paper was not cut that evenly for mounting, and I wanted to get as much of the detailed work near the top as possible. Lots of dust on this one.
I rarely respond to FP canidates, but I love watching this page, and I fell I am uniquely qualified to discuss this one as I am a set designer for theater myself. One big question I have is with the crop of the image. Around the edge of this candidate is a curtain but it is unclear if that curtain is part of the set or if it is actually the House curtain. Because we do not have any reference point of where the proscenium is in relationship to this curtain I am uncertain if this crop is actually the whole set. More simply put if this curtain is the House Curtain then everything is great, but if it is part of the scenery than the image may be cropped too close.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Found5dollar: This is literally the entirety of the image as it exists - I very carefully made sure not to crop out any of it; indeed, I filled about a 6-10 pixels high strip in a few places in order to make sure no information was lost because of the unevenness of the paper. Compare File:Set_design_by_Philippe_Chaperon_for_Act1_sc2_of_Aida_by_Verdi_1871_Cairo_-_Gallica.jpg. I did cut that tiny tag of paper in the lower right hand corner, the rest, at most, lost a pixel or two. The blue backing paper doesn't appear to be original, so I didn't want to keep it.
While it's theoretically possible more of the image existed at some point, it certainly does not now; the BnF has the Paris opera artchives - note the "Bibl. de L'Opera" stamp on the original; this is the only copy. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced. I'm still unsure if in his rendering style these curtains he includes are part of the theater or part of the design, but in-terms of the needs here we have as much info as we can possibly have.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another quality restoration. Based on the original used in this case, it seems that any actual cropping of the design was minuscule.--Godot13 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to include everything but the dust and chipping, (and the rather obviously late-addition blue paper frame it was glued to). Cutting out the draft lines would lessen its value. Thinking finishing Rigoletto next. Adam Cuerden(talk)08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A good image of the most famous national symbol of Latvia. The statue is high up a column, meaning that she is difficult to photograph front-on without a very long zoom. We already have one featured picture of the monument, but that one shows the entire column with the statue only a minor detail. The two different images both have high EV.
Support – Due in part to the monument's interesting history – surprisingly, it survived the Soviet occupation of Latvia. Sca (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great image at thumbnail size, okay at full screen, some focus/artifact issues at full size that become distracting from the waist down... Given the pixel count, final file size seems a bit small.--Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it closer, the de-noise is excessive, it shows in the feet area and the stars. Also I don't see a benefit in reducing (scaling) the image size, it results in loss of details. Aside from the technical issues, I am undecided about significance of EV given we have a FP of the monument. Image complements existing FP, as a set. I like the composition, excellent background. I have to Weak oppose because of technical issues, sorry. Bammesk (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC) ...sidenote: I ran the original image through GIMP despeckle tool, set at 2 pixel radius, and thought it was an improvement, just one user's opinion. Bammesk (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2016 at 04:21:27 (UTC)
Original – A historic covered bridge in Michigan. This is a drone photo taken of a new prospective of the bridge. This is the longest covered bridge in Michigan now. That is listed on the Michigan Historic Place List
Reason
The image is of high technical standards, the image is of high resolution, I hope others think of it is the best images. Looking at the images of some bridges it seems to standout. It has a free licenses. It adds significant encyclopedic value to the article.
Oppose – Colors look over-saturated. Sky is really noisy. Focus at the back of the bridge is soft. White bridge supports are over-exposed. Might've been a better idea to try QI at Commons first. INeverCry10:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A drone is not going to take photos as good as a conventional camera any time soon, and this isn't an unusual enough perspective to make up for the problems (over-exposed, and it doesn't quite seem straight, maybe because the drone's lens is quite fisheye). An image like this one might be a better choice. It's an unusual view, and it shows the full bridge including the dyke. Smurrayinchester14:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with your statement, this nomination is a better angle for sure. However the picture quality is not very good so I will also oppose, but I don't think the problem is with the framing. Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
High quality, high EV (complete/dimensional view of the Winter Palace and adjacent Palace Square). The combination of intermittent overcast skies, restricted to flying over the river, and no hovering, contribute to some technical flaws in this image. I hope it has the EV to compensate.
Unfortunate Oppose because of cut-off building at left - even if it doesn't belong to the Palace, the composition is badly limping because of it... --Janke | Talk09:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke, but on a larger note, I have noticed many of these aerial views being nominated and promoted and I would say that in general I am against them. They show architecture from angles they were never meant to be seen, nor ever recognised by a person on the ground. They are "cool" but the encyclopedic value, I think, is reduced when it's impossible for a person to ever see it like that in real life. Mattximus (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus- I understand your opposition in so far as you cite Janke. However your reasoning in being against aerial photographs and their reduced EV makes no sense to me at all. I agree, for Wikipedia FP, "cool" is not enough, but it is a bonus. To be able to illustrate an object, building, or place in a way that provides a different, rare, or unique scope or perspective is (to me at least) the goal of an encyclopedic image. Using the present image as an example (and I'm not trying to change your opposition to this particular image)- if a reader only had the first two images of the Winter Palace article to rely on (1 and 2), they may be left believing that the the building is basically rectangular in shape. Seeing the building from an aerial perspective (from angles they were never meant to be seen??) illustrates that the palace is actually square with a main courtyard and four smaller courtyards. Is a photo of Earth from the moon less encyclopedic because it is impossible (or highly unlikely) that a person will ever see it like that in real life?--Godot13 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can put it another way. If I saw this picture, then went walking around St. Petersburg, I would not be able to identify the winter palace. Architects do not design buildings (with some exceptions...[3]) to be seen from impossible angles such as from an airplane. Encyclopedic value would thus be much diminished, since the primary purpose for encyclopedic images is to be useful. Mattximus (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Janke, Jobas, and Mattximus: Alternate version offered. Cropped with best effort at a fair (but far from perfect) perspective correction. Mattximus - The impossible angle argument feels a bit circular, so I'll agree to disagree.-Godot13 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt - People fly over cities and see buildings from the air every day, or they see smaller buildings from the top of skyscrapers like the Empire State Building. INeverCry01:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looks suspiciously promotional, especially with that spurious backdrop, but apparently it was taken by a private photog. Sca (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – looks like [4] he is combining several photos, background shadows are a little goofy in a couple places (above fuel tank, to the left of front tire), but the bike is too good to nag! (not that there is anything wrong with nagging!) Bammesk (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several lights, but this is almost certainly a single photograph. The file linked is more of a "making of" to show what setup he was using. Much better equipment than I've ever used ;) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'd have been nice to have the rearmost leg in focus, but the sharpness of the entire rest of the bird is fantastic. An excellent image. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder if European Robbins like to give people dirty looks. The Robbins here in Nevada always give me the evil eye. Another thing our Robbins like to do is make eye-contact for a moment or two and then take a shit. INeverCry22:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - There seems to be an HDR haloing effect going on. Also, the EV isn't that great considering that it's a photo of a juvenile. It definitely has value, but not as much as a photo of an adult, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Not a bad image of the individual, but contrast with background seems weak, leaf is distracting, and as noted by Kaldari subject is a juvenile. Sca (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice capture, very good detail & contrast. Good EV as the species isn't known in the U.S. outside the South. (It would be good if the article included a sound file of their waa-chooo call.) Sca (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me the image, especially the water, looks over-saturated. Also compared to the original [5], the tail-shadow of the right duck has an extra length to it. Bammesk (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. I've worn frock coats and high-collared jackets, and suits similar to those. Really aren't that bad. Can be quite warm, but then, in Skagen? Probably counts as a benefit. Adam Cuerden(talk)22:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 48 and I've never once worn a suit or tie of any kind. Even at weddings, I just wear a white dress shirt loose at the neck and some soft 2nd-hand Levis... I do have a Carhartt jacket, if that counts for anything...INeverCry22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport - Provisional support, but you need to check/swap the files- two versions of the same image exist and the nominated version (png) isn't the one in the article (jpg)...--Godot13 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: What I find with a lot of these old images is that there's a lot of points of failure - the original negative might be really good - but they rarely still exist, so you're looking at prints, which can add grain, as well as the chance to lose sharpness as part of the developing process - but they're only being printed at 3x5" or so, so the added imperfections don't matter until they're scanned (another point where problems can be added). This is a good reproduction; not perfect, but not bad by any means. Now let's look at other images in commons:Category:Skagens_Museums_historiske_fotografier
File:Anna Ancher med kittel, palet og pensler. 1911.jpg is an example of a problematic print, not helped by the scanning. The texture adds lots of noise over what is a pretty good original (though the blurry face isn't doing it any favours.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 October 2016 at 21:14:00 (UTC)
Original – description by User:Balcer~commonswiki, [1]: Denver, Colorado. This photograph is taken from the top of the Colorado State Capitol, facing northwest looking down 16th St. The intersection of 16th and Broadway is in the foreground. The domed building on the left side is the Arapahoe County Courthouse, demolished in 1933. The Brown Palace Hotel is visible on the right side.
Reason
Historic panorama of Denver, Colorado, circa 1898 by notable explorer-photographer William Henry Jackson, restored, used in several articles. (Print edges aren't straight, so the PNG version has transparent borders.)
Support - Great scan, my only concern is that (at 1/4 GB) no mobile user and a number of lap and desktop users may not be able to open the file.--Godot13 (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2016 at 20:09:28 (UTC)
Original – The Ha-ha is an architectural landscaping element generally used to control the movement of livestock around large estates. As illustrated, the ha-ha keeps animals off the main lawn of the Hopetoun House while remaining unseen from the main house. An additional perspective can be seen here.
Weak oppose – Animal's body has a soft (blurry) border all around. Most likely the result of selecting the body for various backgrounds 12 strike per photographer below. Bammesk (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, looking at the image at full size for instance between (x,y)=(1650,2400) and (3650,1950), x,y relative to top left corner, the fur is blurry all along the border of the body (where the body meets the grey background). I think the blurriness is not associated with DOF of the lens, it is an artifact introduced in software during post processing (post processing for the purpose of isolating the body in order to introduce various backgrounds 12). Claw areas were isolated (in software) with more care, so there is no blurriness in claw areas. Bammesk (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of unappealing background and lethargic pose of the animal. Any chance of a photo in a more natural environment? --Janke | Talk06:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hello, I recall that animal. Died that morning in the museum gardens it was shown to me in the middle of a photo shoot of eggs. I have not taken great technical care. I placed it on a large sheet of cardboard and photos of the mole have been made. It appears on this sheet without further treatment. The clipping paths were made by someone else recently. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to FPC so apologies for any misunderstanding. I'm assuming you're alluding to #5 of the featured picture criteria which says that a featured picture "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." I didn't know that the picture also had to be the subject of the article and I thought it would be enough that it shows tarring and feathering (in fact, it's the only photograph in Commons:Category:Tarring and feathering). While researching for the caption, I determined that Meints isn't covered in-depth enough to merit notability. Personally I think the image being used at the top of the article "helps readers to understand [the] article" in showing how tarring and feathering actually looks. Opencooper (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, it's not required. It's just my (ex-journalist's) opinion that the subject of an FP should be discussed, or at least explained, in the target article. Others may disagree. As far as adding EV, didn't this photo simply replace the unrestored version? In that case it doesn't add much visual information to the article. Sorry. Sca (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've added mention of Meints and another German to the 20th century section. As for your second point yes, but it's a restored version that meets a "high technical standard" unlike the original. Regardless, if that's your opinion, I respect that. Thanks for the elaboration. Opencooper (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jobas: Meints is mentioned in the article now. Unless you mean you don't think it has encyclopedic value? I really don't see how a photograph of someone who was tarred and feathered doesn't have encyclopedic value on the tarring and feathering article. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what FPC is for so if you could I'd like if you could elaborate on your oppose and how the image doesn't meet the featured picture criteria. Opencooper (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I fleshed out the article's Meints section from the source and made a few other minor changes, so now I can support the nom. (So happens in the past I wrote about anti-German sentiment during WWI and can vouch for the tone of this section.) Sca (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea at all but of course is contingent on someone restoring the other image. I initially thought about doing the back image but at the time determined that it was very damaged and would take too much time/effort. I tried again to see if I could restore it today but I barely made a dent. I'll keep trying to work on it but I don't think I could personally do it in a week with my low skill level. Opencooper (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2016 at 20:36:22 (UTC)
Original – Royal Albert Hall - View from a central box in the Grand Tier
Reason
A 171 megapixel panorama of the Royal Albert Hall. Taken when the hall is open to visitors on the weekend of Open House London 2016. Normally public access is restricted only to events, and tripod photography is not allowed. The acoustic diffusing discs (mushrooms/flying-saucers) are lit by purple LED lamps in the gallery.
Support as nominator If you have problems viewing this image in your browser, use the interactive large-image viewer, or one of the smaller downsized versions, all of which are linked from the file-description page. It's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so viewing fullscreen is best (Press F11 on Firefox). – Colin°Talk20:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2016 at 23:42:51 (UTC)
Original – An ice shelf extending from Joinville Island into the Antarctic Sound near the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Based on satellite images (Google Earth) dated four weeks before the photograph was taken, the distance from the closest mountain peak to the edge of the ice shelf is approximately 6 miles (9.7 km). The image was captured from a distance of 6 miles from the edge of the ice shelf using a 300mm lens. The height of the shelf edge at the waterline is almost 90 feet.
Comment – very nice image, good EV, but the thickness of the ice feels somewhat muted, I wish the image had more of a punch in highlighting the ice boundary (may be if the water was more blue, but given the location I know what I am asking for is a tall order!). I am undecided about supporting. Bammesk (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bammesk- I understand, I figured this might be a bit of a long shot. The absolute enormity of the shelf is lost without some kind of anchor or reference point. While the ice extends from the mountain 6 miles, my position (using a 300mm lens) was 6 miles from the edge of the ice, so 12 miles from the mountains. Two things in conjunction could have improved it- a 600mm lens with some penguins for size reference. While I have no concrete visible evidence in this case, I would imagine the scale to look something like this.--Godot13 (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An estimate of the height of the ice ledge or cliff in the middle distance would be good to include if at all possible. When I first looked at the picture I thought it was a few feet, perhaps even the size you could step up onto. It was a great surprise to me to learn, as suggested above, that it could actually be this big. 31.49.180.169 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematical Question - Going back to the raw file I measured what appeared to be the tallest point of the ice edge on the left, center, and right of the image. Enlarging the image to 400% and counting pixels produced 0.683 inches, 0.387 inches, and 0.47 inches respectively. Knowing the distance from the camera to the ice edge was six miles, is there a mathematical way to calculate the height of the ice edge?--Godot13 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6 times (36 divided by 300) = # of miles end to end in the horizontal direction of your raw image. 6 for the miles, 36 for the sensor, 300 for focal length. Bammesk (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC) ...Your raw image is 0,72 miles (or 3802 feet) end to end horizontally, then measure the ice height with respect to that (use the raw image, not crops). Bammesk (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the image description page, and on the caption on this page, it says "the distance from the edge of the ice-shelf to the first visible mountain peak is approximately six miles". With no other information, this may give the impression that the edge of the ice shelf is fairly close to the camera, at a distance that is not very signficant compared to six miles. However, I've just noticed in the comments above something that I overlooked earlier, that the distance from the camera to the ice-shelf is also six miles. I think it would be very desirable to add that information to the image description page, and possibly to the caption in the places that the image is used. To my eye, the edge of the ice-shelf appears much, much closer. Knowing it is six miles away helps to understand that it also must be very much higher than it appears. 31.49.180.169 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The maximum height of the edge of the ice shelf (taking the highest point in each third of the ice's edge) ranges from 50.8 to 89.6 feet high. This figure likely means that the comparison provided is roughly accurate for the low end of the range, and an underestimation at the high end.IF a (raw image) span of 0,72 miles wide (3802 feet or 45,624 inches) = 28.96 inches (by pixel count) --> 45,624/28.96 = X/0.683 (using the highest point measured) --> 28.96X = 45,624*0.683 --> then X = 1,076 inches or 89.6 feet.--Godot13 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1 – EV. Also how about adding something like this to the image description: "This image is captured at a distance of 6 miles from the ice-water boundary. At the boundary, ice shelf extends 50 to 90 feet above water." Bammesk (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2016 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Original – Map in English showing the silting evolution of Miletus Bay due to the alluvium brought by the Maeander River during Antiquity.
Reason
This is a beautiful and very informative map showing the progressive silting of Miletus Bay over the centuries by the Meander River. The image is an accessible SVG with a great deal of encyclopedic value.
Comment. The purple lines are confusing. For example, look at the line labelled "Late Antiquity". Where it reaches Miletus, it splits in two, one branch heading to the west and the other to the east. It is physically impossible for this combination of lines to consitute a single coastline at any point in history. Similar problems exist elsewhere in various other places on the map. 31.49.180.169 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gather, the eastward branch belongs to the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. I agree that it can be confusing though. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Neat concept, but I think if you are talking about time, some dates (even date ranges) would be needed along the purple lines. Mattximus (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2016 at 05:38:20 (UTC)
Original – The Port of Castelorizo Island, Dodecanese, Greece
Reason
Stumbled upon this gem. Wonderful photo of a port in a Greek island not too many people know about. It's located in a very interesting spot (check it out on a map). So yeah, EV is great.
Oppose – It looks oversaturated/contrasty, particularly the sky (I would have supported otherwise). Some of it may be because of variations in individual display-screens. Bammesk (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice excessive amounts, although anything uploaded here in JPEG that isn't done by one of us will often have some. It's the problem with Commons encouraging a lossy format. Adam Cuerden(talk)13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with photographs in sepia of rarely-photographed skintones can be awkward to adjudicate, but I think it's clear that A. George Washington Carver was very much on the darker side of the African-American spectrum, and we don't want to conceal that, but B. We could go a little lighter to deal with issues people were having where the details were disappearing - probably due to poorly-calibrated monitors, but we can't expect every one to be perfect. So, I've upped things slightly, but tried to be sensitive to the issues. (Previous noms: 12)
Chris-I have no problem following your advice, but I will need to create an ALT file as the original has a notation in the commons file that it may still be live in WLM Russia 2016...--Godot13 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]