High quality large image. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well. Not appropriate as the lead image, but shows the way the animal retracts its neck and legs.
I'm trying to decide if the dirty shell is a problem. On the one hand, they do swim, so it would be possible to get a washed-off shell in the wild. On the other hand, the shell isn't the main focus. Charles, can you give your thoughts? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs23:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far from an expert, but I understand that details of the shell are important for identification. I doubt we'd feature a picture of a beetle with dirty elytra. I don't think this is particularly suitable as an infobox image, and I'm not completely clear on the extent to which it adds significantly to the article -- which is not to say that I don't think it's a good picture! Lots of personality. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not presented as an identification image, more behaviour i.e. the feet. October is a dry month in South Africa, so sand and dust everywhere - I could have gone and given him a brush down... Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice picture, not a bad little article, appreciate that you can see the stripes and get an idea of habitat. Any idea of subspecies? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – We're so used to seeing pix of gray squirrels and red squirrels that this sporty-looking striped squirrel is an interesting change. (Target article could be more detailed as to diet and habits, though.) – Sca (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lovely image of a historic women's college. Part of a lovely progression in the article where you can see the trees grow in at the college over the decades. The college ceased to exist in 1911, so there's limited chances to document it.
I thought that it did, but I had some trouble telling as there's a small amount of what I presume is lens distortion as well. I'm uploading a -.3 degree rotation; if you want to have a poke, here's the uncropped restored version. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs06:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It does look tilted; either that, or perspective is distorted. Detail might not be too bad for the 1860s, but huge featureless foreground detracts from EV regarding this obscure institution. – Sca (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I'll be honest: I do like that one better, but it is a little smaller, largely because it's cut from a frankly bizarre and awful choice to make it an oval print, and I figured adding some extra sky was fine, but I didn't want to use excessive speculation on the actal grounds. Might touch it up a bit more and nominate it instead. Withdraw. I'll be back! Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs23:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An important documentary that was selected as one of the first 25 films inducted in the National Film Registry, this is yet another film that is worth watching for its achievements.
It is incredibly impressive, but I'm not quite sure I understand why it exists. What's the advantage of this over a photograph, given any change from the real object lessens its encyclopedic value in representing that object? It's an amazing work, but I don't understand why it exists. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs01:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2020 at 12:24:14 (UTC)
Original – The Goddess Ambika (here identified with: Durga or Chandi) leading the Eight Matrikas in Battle Against the Demon Raktabija, Folio from a Devi Mahatmya - (top row, from the left) Narashmi, Vaishnavi, Kumari, Maheshvari, Brahmi. (bottom row, from left) Varahi, Aindri and Chamunda, drinking the blood of demons (on right) arising from Raktabija's blood and Ambika.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2020 at 15:06:25 (UTC)
Original – Nelly Martyl, opera singer and Red Cross nurse.
Reason
A fine Reutlinger photograph. Some minor damage to the right edge of her dress, otherwise able to be restored to a pretty pristine state. Restored on the article creator's request.
Support – As the article creator, I'm thrilled that the image on the biographical article will be of such good quality. Those Reutlinger arrays in Commons include some real treasures, but they're often damaged and need restoration. This is a great example of what's possible. – Penny Richards (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is that transitional period between the long-exposure film of the mid to late 19th century that required people to use devices to hold themselves still, and the more spontaneous poses allowed by faster film. I've noticed a bit of a nosedive in quality around the 1910s when they realise they can shoot faster with a bit of loss of quality, and are using it to shoot the same sort of compositions people are used to from long exposures, before film quality catches back up and compositions grow more interesting. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs23:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2020 at 00:25:55 (UTC)
Original – Constance Baker Motley, upon the occasion of becoming the first female New York State Senator. She would later be appointed federal judge by Lyndon B. Johnson
Reason
Quite a fine image, freely licensed, and from a somewhat under-represented period for free licensing. Also, she's clearly important. The light line on her shirt appears to be a reflection from her bracelet.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2020 at 11:15:16 (UTC)
Original – Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu signs the Instrument of Surrender on behalf of the Japanese Government, on board USS Missouri, 2 September 1945. Lieutenant General Richard K. Sutherland, U.S. Army, watches from the opposite side of the table. Foreign Ministry representative Toshikazu Kase is assisting Mr. Shigemitsu.Alt 1 Restored version by Adam Cuerden
Oppose Good EV, but the photo needs restoration before it meets the FP criteria. The composition is also not great, but that's true of most of the photos of this ceremony. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1. Strong EV and a competently executed photo. As noted above, there don't seem to be any good photos of this historic ceremony, possibly due to the location where it took place (the deck of an operational battleship cramped with large numbers of VIPs and sailors). Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
question Having read the article, I don't see where pink smoke is relevant! Charlesjsharp (talk)
@Charlesjsharp: I believe that's the pigment powders floating through the air - Holi is perhaps best known in the West, at least, for the coloured powders thrown about as part of the celebration, not that that's particularly well-explained in Holi, and barely touched upon in Lathmar Holi - I think it's presumed to be an "everyone knows this" sort of thing, when it shouldn't be. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs22:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me, a picture taken from in front of the exhibit would be better, not the side. The image on the 9GAG website shows a better POV, but the ideal would be from slightly higher up. Even better would be to ask permission from the museum to take a shot for Wikipedia with the glass removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar shot, but i don't like composition. I choose that above - diagonal. Also its more about wheel than axle, which should take good % of photo. --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2020 at 01:21:58 (UTC)
Original – Fishing boats lashed together in the the Indian village of Anjarle to protect against the oncoming monsoon, whose clouds are visible nearby.
Reason
This photo is a great visualization of the Indian monsoon. It shows fishing boats, the lifeblood of the village Anjarle, lashed together tightly to protect from the unforgiving monsoon, whose clouds are visible behind the boats. It is already a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons and appeared as picture of the day on the Wikimedia Commons and the Bengali Wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears
the FA India WP oldest country FA (to turn 16 this month) has had this picture in its Geography section for over a year now.
I'm very sorry but I've reinstated the picture in India where the tradition is to add, remove, or replace pictures only during the annual or biannual, image discussions. Without that, a page with > 40K views a day would be in a mess. The next discussion is in (this upcoming) November. What exactly would be an illustration of an Indian monsoon anyway? An ordinary, anonymous, downpour, indistinguishable from those in Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, ...? The pictures need to illustrate specific text. (Until last September we had two pictures showing the monsoon (part of a daily rotating template in Geography): File:NDRF in Bihar Flood 2.jpg and an FP File:Agasthiyamalai range and Tirunelveli rainshadow.jpg, both illustrating the text there.) I'm the primary author of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Insofar as I can. I'm not Indian, and can't speak on things like, say, which Indian monuments or cities most deserve pictures, but I can try and advise as far as I can. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs17:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: I'm not either. Nationality or citizenship is not a requirement, might even be a plus for NPOV. I think we need advice on an image's quality more than its appropriateness for the text. ( Recently, for example, someone objected to a picture File:Kurta traditional front sandalwood buttons.jpg (of our son, now an adult, but 15 at the time) as a part of an illustration of Kurta, a collarless shirt. The objection was: "Extremely low quality image. Low relevance. Probably violates children Personality rights. Just not an image for a FA." It is those kinds of issues I'm not very good with. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is this 'tradition is to add, remove, or replace pictures only during the annual or biannual, image discussions.' User:Fowler&fowler? This is news to me as a regular Wikipedia editor. Please explain asap. As far as I know, any editor can edit any article at any time. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC). And to revert my good faith edit may be considered edit-warring which is not recommended. As a matter of fact, these boats are NOT secured ready for a monsoon. Any seaman could tell you that. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2020 at 03:57:51 (UTC)
Original – Fly duet from Jacques Offenbach's Orphée aux enfers with Jeanne Granier as Eurydice and Eugène Vauthier as Jupiter. 1887 revival.Alt 1: Submitted for your approval: A colourised version. Wilfredor researched costumes and tried to get as accurate colours as possible, and I really like his work. There's a little speculation in colourisation, though. On the other hand, it makes the image much easier to interpret at a glance.
Reason
A really fun - and particularly daring for 1887! - photo of a ridiculous scene in a ridiculous opera. The wings are drawn on in multiple versions of this image; I presume the real ones didn't photograph well with the long shots of the time. Really encyclopædic for the scene.
Support I know there is a lot of speculation with the colors, maybe it is a destructive version because we will never know exactly how it looked (since the colors of the garments can change even in events of the same work), but thank you very much for proposing it Wilfredor (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Atelier Nadar - Fly scene from Offenbach's Orphée aux enfers with Jeanne Granier as Eurydice and Eugène Vauthier as Jupiter, 1887 revival, wide-angle shot.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus05:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stunning and terrifying detail. Saw this on Commons. It impressed me and set of all my insect phobias. But I am tampering them down. It was focusstacked from 28 images, so that every part of it is crystal clear and terrifying, especially the sharp pointy claws and fat white body. ...But, that said, this is one of the best insect photos I've seen, and we want it here, and I won't let my phobia of maggots and grubs stop that.
Support Looks rather good. Could wish for more resolution, though; I can't think when I last wasn't able to count the individual feather barbs on your photos, but wildlife photography is all about taking chances when they come. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs08:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Resolution wise a bit tight considering the loose crop and especially if one is to focus only on one of the birds. What does the second bird add? --Muhammad(talk)12:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the second image is best, don't know why the first one is there at all as the trees block the building. This one is a lovely image, but doesn't add as much value to the article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, the actual photo is gorgeous if zoomed in. It'd be an absolutely stunning poster. On the other hand, it's not really the most thumbnail-friendly photo. Perhaps {{CSS image crop}} to the rescue? But I think I'll Support on merits. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs08:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2020 at 08:04:52 (UTC)
Original – The Entrance Hall of the Green-Meldrim House in 1864, when it was being used as General Sherman's Headquarters.
Reason
There was a previous nomination back in 2012, but I don't understand the arguments. William Waud was an artist hired to document the American Civil War. There's no photographs of Sherman's occupancy of the Green-Meldrim House (or I'm horribly mistaken), but we have on-the-spot documentation of the most important event to happen there. I can't see how that isn't exceptionally valuable.
I'm going to have to second David. It's a great image, but it's barely this side of used. It's the equivalent of a gallery image, and can't be an FP until that changes. If the model enters production, gaining its own article, it'll naturally gain prominence and will then be featureable. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs03:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Looks like a common garden variety promotional pic. Lacks visual interest. (I say this despite a certain fondness for green VWs.) [2] – Sca (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2020 at 18:14:54 (UTC)
Original – A curved spiny spider (Macracantha arcuata). Note there is only one species in this genus.Edit 1 – Center cropped, saturation/color adjusted
Reason
Featured on Commons. Hope you're not scared of spiders...
Support This is an excellent example of NASA astronaut portraits, and a very good portrait of the subject. I really liked the previous FPC of Mr Melvin with his dogs (as a great portrait with lots of character, and potential to be used in a wide range of articles), and would also support it again if it was renominated. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2020 at 22:29:19 (UTC)
Original – Beulah Ream Allen, a nurse captured by the Japanese in the Second World War, being awarded the Medal of Freedom for her service in the camps.
Reason
While not perfect, depicts a key event insofar as it shows her being recognised for her service
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2020 at 07:16:49 (UTC)
Original – Masjid an-Nabawi in Madina, Arabia. View of the mosque from south, minaret of bab al-Baqi and Green Dome to the right (foreground) and minaret of bab as-Salam to the left (foreground).
Reason
Good quality, symmetry and high EV of one of Islam's holiest places.
PS also at a technical level there is visible grain in the sky and visible chromatic aberration at the edges of the buildings near the left and right sides of the shot. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's been a lot of commentary over recent years about the over-development around the sacred Islamic sites in Saudi Arabia. This photo clearly illustrates the results, and does a good job of presenting this site as it actually is, not as it used to be and is marketed. Looking at satellite imagery on Google maps shows that this site now sits in the middle of an grid of ugly buildings with yet more under construction. As such, the EV (which is a major consideration for an an encyclopedia) is strong, and much stronger than pictures which misrepresent the site. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This image appears to have been taken from a hotel about 1000ft away. A better camera and lens from the same location can achieve much better images. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2020 at 07:27:31 (UTC)
Original – The Kaaba in Makkah, Islam's holiest site.
Reason
A difficult place to get good pictures of with a ban on cameras inside the mosque. I managed to get this from a nearby building. Kaaba literally means cube and the angle on this does a great job of showing that.
Support. The pixel count is quite low for FPC, but I'm willing to overlook that given its extreme encyclopedic value as the stable lead image of its topic, the striking visual quality of the shot, the difficulty of getting this shot, and the image degradation that likely comes just from all the air across the distance needed to get this shot. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "artsy" star trails distract to such an extent that the EV suffers. Besides, it appears this is a composite, not a real image. Strong (editing?) artifacts at top of mountains. --Janke | Talk15:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Foreground lighting (bright enough, from a single non-moving point of illumination, to have crisp visible shadows) seems highly inconsistent with star exposure (roughly 1.5 hours judging by the length of the star trails). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2020 at 00:30:47 (UTC)
Original – Set design for the original 1776 production of the French version (which is very heavily revised) of Christoph Willibald Gluck's Alceste. The illustrations on it depict events in Act III.
Reason
I think this predates anything else in WP:FP/THEATRE by about 50 years, which makes it unique for us, and starts to bring in a whole new generation of theatre and artists. Plus, it's one of Gluck's major operas, which makes it quite valuable. It wasn't an easy restoration - the paper was somewhat filthy - but I did my best.
Meets all 8 of the WP:FP? criteria, and represents the highest resolution 1:100,000 Survey of Palestine fully combined map available anywhere. The stitching of the 24 underlying maps has been done to a high technical standard, as has the georeferencing. The map is of great encyclopaedic value, representing the territory of Mandatory Palestine immediately prior to its dissolution into Israel and the Palestinian territories and the dispersion of the Palestinian refugees.
Thanks, much easier to open (with some additional minor artifacts at magnification). I did some spot checks and couldn't find any serious alignment problems. The rectangular grids don't always line up, but that seems to be a feature of the maps, not necessarily an alignment problem. I am Ok with supporting either the JPEG or the PNG, one is easier to open and the other has higher quality. I wait to see if others find any problems. Bammesk (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of discontinuities across y~18800, particularly near the left hand side. These are mostly contours that are duplicated or terminate. If the map is actually like that, then please say so and I will withdraw my oppose. MER-C16:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C:, @Onceinawhile: - Please find a close-up view of the coordinates (040, 070) at pixels y~18800. The original scans for 14Rafa and 17Nitsana have mismatched contour lines. For example, the diagonal line from SW to NE at (040,078) is only part of 17 (lower image), not part of 14 (upper image):
{{{annotations}}}
Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 1-100,000 14Rafa, close-up at 040,075
{{{annotations}}}
Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 1-100,000 17Nitsana, close-up at 040,075
I have produced a new version of the file with tighter cropping. Due to the size > 100 MB, I am unable to update the original version. Should it be uploaded under a new file name and the nomination process continue with this new file? - DutchTreat (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fairly charming image of the first African American nurse in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps. Rather like her wooden name plaque and it's clever positioning in the photo as almost a caption.
Support – how about brightening the left side a bit? It looks to me like a scanning problem rather than a photographic or lighting feature. Bammesk (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was shot with a flash and that's the primary light source (see her neck, also the wall and window trims have a similar shadow). Flash doesn't leave a rectangular gradient on one side (left side), so the dark left side is not a feature of the photo. It can be corrected fully IMO. . . . Here are some possibilities of what could have happened: 1-the photo wasn't scanned properly (it can happen with flatbed scanners, similar to photocopy machines), or 2-something was partially impeding the path of the flash light on the left side (and vertically), this is unlikely given the well-defined shadows on the wall trims, also unlikely given nothing is impeding the path of the lens, or 3-the negative wasn't handled/developed properly. In any case, the dark left side is not a feature of the photo, so I think it is Ok to fix it. Bammesk (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: There's a definite shadow on the left side of her face. That makes me presume the lighting isn't centred. I could be wrong, but I believe a flash at the time would be the old flash pans, not one on the camera. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs02:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is not an on-camera flash, and it is positioned slightly off center. Nonetheless the primary source is one flash, placed near the camera and above the lens. Bammesk (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With slight reluctance, Done. Given the clear reflection off of the one box in the upper mid-left, the upper left-centre clearly should be lighter than the bit left of that, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs03:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a quibbleEvery photograph in the article has the head facing the camera. It would be nice to have a profile on the article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs18:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2020 at 16:08:44 (UTC)
Original – upper side of wings of balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) in BulgariaOriginal – underside of wings of balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) in Bulgaria
Reason
High quality large images. FP on Commons. Illustrates article well, showing top side and underside of wings.
Support, interesting and detailed. Question: The left edge of the vessel (about 1/4th from right) looks a bit chopped off compared with the other blurry boat edge(s) - is this an artifact of stitching? --Janke | Talk18:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The horizontal rays of light represent the distance the boat traveled during the exposure. It probably traveled slower / stayed for longer on the left than the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – KoH, there are a couple of odd (sharp) transition lines in the water at around x=7400, I annotated it on Commons. They don't look real to me, are they? Bammesk (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At thumbnail sizes the black-on-black makes only the metro sign legible. Even at larger sizes, where the detail in the black can be seen well enough, there is nothing interesting in that detail. And this is not used in any articles, so encyclopedic value is not evident (and it would need to be in stable use for some time before any nomination, so adding it now is not going to help). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, with an explanation The image is decent enough, although those poles in the foreground are unfortunate, but I suspect there's better times to get this - sunset, say, or twilight, that'll give just enough light to bring everything up a bit. An Iphone is a pretty decent camera for a phone, but it comes out a bit grainy at low light levels as most digital cameras do. The real blocker is that it's not actually in any of the articles listed, and I'm not sure why you listed it as being in them - are they meant as suggestions? Unfortunately, it has to be used on English Wikipedia in order to be accepted and while there's exceptions for being stable in an article before nomination (like being the only photo in an article, or being so clearly important that no-one sensible would remove it), I don't think this hits any of them. If it's not in any articles, it's not a featured picture. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs03:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2020 at 21:31:54 (UTC)
Original – We can't say their true preferred gender for certain when their passing as male gave them many, many benefits - which is why historians tend to be very careful with assigning people as transgender. This really shows in our article on them. Sándor Vay or Sarolta Vay was a Hungarian poet and journalist. Vay worked as a male journalist both before and after the sensational trial for their marriage to "another" woman in 1889. The case drew the attention of noted sexologists of the period, including Havelock Ellis and Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who used it to explore female inversion in the emerging field of sexology. During their lifetime, they were well respected as an author of historical articles on notable figures and cultural topics related to Hungary. Many of their works have been posthumously republished and are considered an important part of their country's literary heritage.
Reason
Last nomination barely failed to reach quorum. The 1910s were a bit of a photographic nadir - I think the ability to get faster photographs won out over quality for a while, and prints weren't amazing, but this is decent for the time, even having a bit of character to it. Think it's a rather good image from a very underrepresented country, and depicts someone who is both an important Hungarian poet and writer, and an important person in LGBT history.
Support - high quality and encyclopedic depiction, I don't see anything wrong with a creative layout (indeed the mirror allows more of the animal to be seen TSP (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could see maybe tweaking the levels of this as well. Don't stretch it the whole way, but I'd raise the white point a bit if I were you. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A high-quality lithograph of probably the most popular scene of Robert le diable: The one in which the spirits of perverted nuns all seduce the "hero". ...Yeah, this opera's morality is really off. Don't worry, the "hero" decides not to sell his soul to his father, who is a devil, because he hears a song that reminds him of his mother, but only after his love interest arrives to tell him he's going to get everything he wants either way! (He was still going to sign the contract, just to make sure, though, before he heard the music)
Oppose - there is a large blurry smear on the top of the rightmost large foreground arch. It's bad enough that it is visible on the file description page. MER-C10:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's some minor damage (whiter areas that don't appear to reflect any real objects) to the blurry part of the left background, but it's quite minor and I doubt anyone but me would even notice. It's a stunning photo. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then, nothing to say. This is a fine example of Indian classical dance. Thus, it should be promoted. The performer, a school student, was one among the many participants in a dance competition, not a well known dancer at all. The highlight here is the Indian classical Dance. I hope you consider the above facts.--Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the article is about the dance so a full body photo would have more EV (encyclopedic value), FP criterion #5. This photo would meet the EV criterion if the article described (say in a paragraph) this upper body pose, but I don't see that in the article. Also as a technical critique, the crop is too tight on top and left side. Bammesk (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An unusual image I found looking through the table of the events leading up to the United States Civil War. According to our article on the relevant ship in question, the image is not 100% accurate as it contains omissions and the ship in question is known to have hauled for more slaves then depicted here, however the same article states with citations that "...this image has become the one most used to depict conditions on a slave ship" and asserts that the image "...has become an iconic image of the inhumanity of the slave trade." Submitting here for community consideration of an FP star.
@MER-C: The text is physically cut off in the original, as you can see in the uncropped version. I'm not sure we would want to do a restoration on this as most of the damage is from tears, folds, and stains, rather than dust and scratches that you get on a photograph. Making such substantial alterations might affect the image's role as a verifiable historical document. But I would defer to Adam's opinion on this. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the text is cut off on LOC original too. From seeing several illustrations on Wikisource, the text plausibly contains authorship information so it's important to the historical veracity of the document. MER-C16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Since the LoC seems to have the physical document (they have 2 different photographs of it and it's housed in their Rare Book Reading Room) and I wasn't able to find another high res version on the internet that pre-dates ours, I imagine the uploader acquired it directly from the LOC Prints and Photographs Division (which you can do for a fee). I've done this myself for images where the version on the LoC website was sub-standard, e.g. File:The Horse in Motion high res.tiff. This would also jive with the uploader's comment: "Higher resolution from LoC source". Unfortunately, the uploader retired many years ago, so we can't find out from them directly. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to know a lot more about this particular print and its significance. The Brooks illustration was widely-distributed in a wide assortment of versions; the first, by Elford in 1788, seems to have simply been a single plan view with accompanying text (possibly this); this was then added to in a 1789 broadsheet. Many subsequent versions were made, of which this undated version seems to be one. Given it's not in great condition, I'd want some reason to believe it is both a historically-significant printing, and that no copy of this printing in better condition can be found. TSP (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]