Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Featured picture candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

  • Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.

Step 3:
Transclude and link

Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}.

Editing candidates

If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied.

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

Gray contrast test image.svg
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.
Highlight test image.svg
Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.
On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.
Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache.

FPCs needing feedback
view · edit

Current nominations[edit]

Chequered Skipper[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 08:39:26 (UTC)

Original – The Chequered Skipper or Arctic Skipper (Carterocephalus palaemon) is a butterfly of the Hesperiidae family. This specimen was photographed in Laab im Walde, Austria.
High quality and attractive. The animal really stands out against the background.
Articles in which this image appears
Chequered Skipper
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Cuz I like the name. And the colors. (It's a large file, could be cropped a bit tighter.) Sca (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent definition. Shouldn't want it cropped myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per Coat - and also Sca. It is a delicate, lovely picture and it is so sharp, you can count each little hair on the butterflys back. (cropped or not) Hafspajen (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
How many are there, Haffy? Sca (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
1, 2, 3 ... many. Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It'd be worth keeping an eye on the article, as it's a little over-illustrated. Also, it be good if the subject could be sexed, but as males and females are apparently pretty similar, it's not essential. Beautifully composed photo! J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nusfjord Road[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 02:18:11 (UTC)

Original – A mountain massif of Flakstadøya island backgrounding the road (Fylkesvei 807) to Nusfjord village, Lofoten, Nordland, Norway
Nice looking image
Articles in which this image appears
Flakstadøya, Scandinavian coastal conifer forests
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
  • Support as nominator///EuroCarGT 02:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Beautiful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is something else, alright. I just don't see the EV though. It's in a gallery on the article on the island, and though it's the lead image in the article on the forests, the focus isn't actually on the forests. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Gorgeous, fresh yet ethereal. Love it. But Crisco has a point re EV ... ?? Sca (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment - can be fixed. Hafspajen (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It's in the gallery at Lofoten, but very small. Perhaps User:EuroCarGT would like to move it up & resize? Sca (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a very atmospheric image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

National Bank Notes (Original/1875) set[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2014 at 23:26:17 (UTC)

High quality, high EV (presented as a set). A complete denomination set of the first series of National Bank Notes. The design features both allegorical and historical vignettes, and engravings reproducing 7 of 8 paintings hanging in the Capitol Rotunda. The motivation for the Treasury Department’s design selection was two-fold: educationally it would circulate images depicting important scenes from American history while at the same time enhancing the security of the note by involving highly complex engravings. There are three $500 notes known (two in government collections, one held privately), and the $1,000 note is unknown in issued form.

Each National Bank Note is signed (the present early examples by hand, but later often by rubber stamp) by the President (or Vice President) and Cashier (or Assistant Cashier) of the bank. The bank officers who signed the notes below include: one mining tycoon, two lawyers (one of which was a State senator, the other a State Supreme Court judge and law school Dean), 3 doctors (one a Civil War colonel, the other survived the Battle of Little Bighorn), and one Civil War general (see the primary article for links).

Original – A 9-note complete denomination type set of first issue National Bank Notes

Articles in which this image appears
Art and engraving on United States banknotes, National Bank Note
FP category for this image
American, Continental, and National Bank Note Companies under contract to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
The $500 and $1,000 are from the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.
Images by Godot13.
Denomination type set of first issue National Bank Notes
$1 Original Series
First National Bank
Lebanon, Indiana 
$2 Series 1875
First National Bank
Emporia, Kansas 
$5 Series 1875
Vineland National Bank
Vineland, New Jersey 
$10 Series 1875
First National Bank
Bismarck, North Dakota 
$20 Series 1875
First National Bank
Butte, Montana 
$50 Series 1875
First National Bank
Cleveland, Ohio 
$100 Original Series
Raleigh National Bank
Raleigh, North Carolina 
$500 Original Series
Appleton National Bank
Lowell, Massachusetts 
$1,000 Series 1875 (proof)
First National Bank
Salem, Massachusetts 

  • Support as nominatorGodot13 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Beautiful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - More beautiful scans. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting themes. Brandmeistertalk 08:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Historically and aesthetically interesting. Sca (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Almond blossom[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2014 at 17:33:47 (UTC)

Original – Van Gogh's work Almond Blossom reflected his interest in Japanese wood block prints. Vincent van Gogh said (citation): Arles was "the Japan of the South."
From the National Gallery of Art's "Effects of the Sun in Provence (citation):

"It was sun that Van Gogh sought in Provence, a brilliance and light that would wash out detail and simplify forms, reducing the world around him to the sort of pattern he admired in Japanese woodblocks. [1]

Articles in which this image appears
Almond Blossoms, Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh Museum, List of works by Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh's family in his art
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Vincent van Gogh
No idea, Coaty
  • Support as nominator – (and Crisco trimmed image) Hafspajen (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is an example where the image on the museum site is richer than the version supplied to Google Art Project, but as I mention below I can't get at it myself. Perhaps someone else knows how and can overwrite the file with the museum version. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Video. Almond blossom, Hafspajen (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? You've got me worried. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OH; people think, light blue, oh, that can't be van Gogh. They expect him to have strong colours, but it is not true - he painted a lot of etheral, light and airy paintings too, pinks and light blues. That's HIM too... It is just prejudice. Hafspajen (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not paint but... what, exactly? Plastic? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Plastic?? Do you mean the very thick paint when the light reflects on it? That was van Gogs style. He always did that. He used up twice as much paint than the others, took thick brushes and lots and lots of paint on it, so it is like you can clearly see how the brush touched the canvas. Kind of nice too. If you observe the Sunflowers, same there. He painted in a wild, energetic and spontaneous way... Hafspajen (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the video, he says that the reproduction they were showing was not paint (although it looked like it)... so what was it? That's an interesting video. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hm, well, you got me on that. I don't know why he said that, the Dutch curator at the museum, and it is not explained. The only thing I can come up with that he possibly (?) meant that van Gogh didn't always bought his paints in a tube or painted out of a tube - but made sometimes his own colors. He grounded the pigment and prepared it himself - but this doesn't sounds like a very good explanation. Hafspajen (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite sure what the nuances of this discussion are, but it's just a Giclée print whose characteristic is it's fidelity to the original (but it 2-D and not relief - one day that will happen of course). Point of my response was that the thought suddenly occurred to me that VGM in fact displays it Giclée reproductions on its pages. That's really quite possible. I'm not aware that van Gogh ground his own pigment. Van Gogh's method of working very much flavour of the month in van Gogh circles. I have Marije Vellekoop's recent Van Gogh at Work and there's no mention there. Perhaps he did for a while during one of his experimental phases, but certainly not as a regular practice. He was constantly asking his brother to order (and pay for) colours for him. I'm the sort of photographer who takes photos of other people looking at paintings BTW. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that brother of him who never sold his pictures or made any advertisment for them. One should never trust only one manager. Sometimes he did, if I remember that right (reading his letters), but I said that it was not a very convincing explanation. The - Dutch curator just stops in the middle of the sentence so the rest is cut of. He could have said something more afterwards that put that in a context. Anyway, paint in tube is a fairly new invention- and most painers did made their own paint - in the history of painting... Hafspajen (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The entire family an epic tragedy. Vincent a suicide, his brother Theo dead from neurosyphilis six months later, another brother also a suicide, their ypounger sister Wim, an early feminist, sectioned around 1910 and lingering on for some 30 years entirely unresponsive to her surroundings, and the other sister tormented by an illicit affair in her youth which saw her only child put out for adoption. That's what I call dysfunctional. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a terrible loss. He was still so young, only 37... A very sad story. Hafspajen (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The image could be made from the files named 4-x-x.jpg in this folder. – Editør (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Did they seriously leave that folder open to the public? There's a plug-in for Gimp which allows people to put this together easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
All files used for the zoom function are in open folders. – Editør (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. I'll try and put together their Potato Eaters if I can Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Got the tiles. It's a straight forward 14 x 10 mosaic (at level 4). Ill stitch them with Mathematica, but it will involve some string manipulations opening files I don't normally do, so it will be a day or two I expect while I clue up on that. Should be 3586x2517 pixels and I'll overwrite Commons:File:Van-willem-vincent-gogh-die-kartoffelesser-03850.jpg with it, but I can tell you right now someone will come along and lighten it to their satisfaction. Still I'll have done my best. Thanks very much for pointing me to the folders. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Lol at the no idea thumbnail. ///EuroCarGT 19:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks like it needs a crop. Kaldari (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the ~3 black pixels on the right and bottom? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    There are thin lines visible at the bottom and on the right. – Editør (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's exactly what I meant. Does he mean this, or is there a more serious issue that I can't see? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    I imagine it can be cropped. Hafspajen (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Alright, trimmed. They were one pixel thick. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Editør (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A brilliant reproduction of a stunning painting. I feel Commons:Template:Artwork would be a helpful addition. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Effects of the Sun in Provence". National Gallery of Art Picturing France (1830—1900). Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art. p. 12. 

SAI KZ IV[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2014 at 09:19:08 (UTC)

Original – The only still functional KZ IV ambulance aircraft with registration OY-DIZ landing at Danish Air Show 2014. Built by Skandinavisk Aero Industri with first flight on May 4, 1944. Restored to its wartime configuration after a crash in 1977. In 1949, the OY-DIZ was christened with the name Folke Bernadotte in honour of the Swedish count who had used this very aircraft to make a diplomatic visit to Germany to negotiate for the release of Danish prisoners in German concentration camps near the end of the war.
A unique aircraft restored to its wartime configuration with an interesting history taken in good light conditions with good timing while landing.
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
  • Support as nominatorSlaunger (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Good EV, but it's a crop of an original which doesn't make the pixel count and indeed the definition isn't as high as I should like to see in a Featured Picture. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • reply It is correct it has been cropped from an original 16 Mpixels down to a little over 7 Mpixels. Yet that is still well above the minimum file size. When photographing relatively fast moving object while panning, I tend to zoom out a bit as it can be hard to exactly frame the object as intended the moment things happens, and it is then easier to crop a bit afterwards. This aircraft only landed once, so it was the only chance I had. I think the less-than-optimal resolution is compensated by excellent light. I admit though, that my gear was miserable compared to the gear used by the pro aviation photographers at the same event:-) --Slaunger (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I beg your pardon. I missed the note about the original file size in the original image. Happy to support now below. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above remarks. Nice image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As good EV as we could expect for a plane like this. Technical quality is good too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good EV--Godot13 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Plum trees by Utagawa Hiroshige and Vincent van Gogh[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2014 at 09:07:06 (UTC)

Original 1The Plum Garden in Kameido (1857) by Hiroshige, from his One Hundred Famous Views of Edo, in the collection of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam
Original 2Flowering Plum Tree (after Hiroshige) (1887) by Vincent van Gogh, from his Japonaiserie, in the collection of the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam
Individually two quality images of art works by famous artists, having even more encyclopedic value when shown side by side.
Articles in which this image appears
Japonaiserie (Van Gogh) (both), Copies by Vincent van Gogh (both), Hiroshige (both), One Hundred Famous Views of Edo (Hiroshige image), Vincent van Gogh (Van Gogh image), Japonism (Van Gogh image), List of works by Vincent van Gogh (Van Gogh image), Almond Blossoms (Van Gogh image), Modern art (Van Gogh image)
FP category for this image
Hiroshige and Vincent van Gogh (artists)
Rijksmuseum and Google Art Project (photographers)
and DcoetzeeBot (uploaders)
  • Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Useful as a set. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the van Gogh was down when I went to Van Gogh Museum to check source image. This is a Google image, but often the museum has better quality available and that from VGM is superb. But they're very tight about their Zoomify images, bundling them into a viewer I'm not nerdy enough to penetrate. Hints appreciated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and actually add one of the more Japanese inspired van Gogh pictures above. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

James Webb Space Telescope mirror acceptance testing[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2014 at 04:53:15 (UTC)

Original – Six of the primary mirrors of the James Webb Space Telescope being prepared for acceptance testing
Striking image, good composition, good illustration for the JWST, Primary mirror and Acceptance testing articles
Articles in which this image appears
James Webb Space Telescope, Systems architect, and just added to primary mirror and acceptance testing
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
NASA/MSFC/David Higginbotham
  • Support as nominatorPine 04:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Really noisy, like ISO 3200 noisy. Otherwise great, but so noisy... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Just voted for this over at FPC. No technical data on the file. I'm guessing it had to be taken in low or available light as those mirrors would have been blinding under lights? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Definitely in low-light conditions, but there are some tools that help reduce noise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Tripods. Also I'd expect better than at at 3200ISO on a modern DSLR. Might have been taken with one of those expensive medium format hasselblads that NASA uses (they don't perform very well in low light).©Geni (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good perspective. ///EuroCarGT 19:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Crisco. Lovely picture. But the photos on Featured pictures are of really high quality - and this one is not quite there. Hafspajen (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Kampoeng Rawa[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2014 at 00:45:38 (UTC)

Original – The dock at the tourist attraction Kampoeng Rawa, which connects to Lake Rawa Pening through a canal. This image is illustrative because it shows just how close Kampoeng Rawa is to the lake, which has been the source of controversy.
ALT – Panorama of the site itself, from the approaching road. Mounts Merbabu and Telomoyo are visible in the background.
Good resolution and attractive view of the dock and Lake Rawa Pening
Articles in which this image appears
Kampoeng Rawa; I might add this to Lake Rawa Pening too
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others, maybe?
Chris Woodrich
  • Alt added, also support alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be happy to support the splendid panorama you have on the page, but this doesn't seem to me to be especially encyclopaedic (what does it really add to our knowledge of Kampoeng Rawa?). Image not especially striking either for that matter, though of course technically it is very fine as all your images are. 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've added the alt. Aside from illustrating the dock itself, the first image illustrates how close the attraction is to Lake Rawa Pening (although Google's overhead view showed me exactly how shockingly close), which has been a point of contention (see the last two paragraphs in the article). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Alt - splendid panorama. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Original – Although it might be the best possible photo on that location, the composition of Original doesn't work for me. I'm undecided about ALT. What exactly are we looking at here? – Editør (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The Kampoeng Rawa site, which is spread out across multiple buildings in between rice fields and swamplands. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    Firstly, I think the backdrop is beautiful. Secondly, are these, from left to right, the restaurant, crafts center, and pendopo? I couldn't figure out what the buildings on the right might be. Thirdly, wouldn't a photo such as [1] have much more encyclopedic value as an image of the kampung? – Editør (talk)
    That's the restaurant itself, viewed from much closer up. It's actually on the viewer's right side (you can see the front entrance from this angle). I'll label the buildings; I can tag them too if necessary. As for EV, I think a view of the site is better than just one or two buildings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've added information to the description page, as well as some notations. I have an image of the restaurant I can upload locally as well, but I prefer the dock image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for the extra information. I've added an image caption to the article and the image's encyclopedic value is much clearer now. But the image doesn't obviously pass or fail WP:FP? #3 for Kampoeng Rawa, so I've decided to abstain from voting on ALT. – Editør (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - You're really having fun with photomerging. (Unless you have a wide angle lens) ///EuroCarGT 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope, no wide angle lens yet (the distortion would have given me away if I did). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ALT--Godot13 (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ALT- and I think that the garish colours to the right at original is the one that is causing the problems - the boat and the big sign - if one takes a paper and covers those, I think it is an excelent picture - otherwise. Hafspajen (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's kinda how they paint their boats, however... I think it has something to do with attracting tourists with bright, happy colors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

1730 Homann map of Scandinavia, Finland, and the Baltics[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 16:59:54 (UTC)

Original – 1730 Johann Homann Map of Scandinavia, Finland and the Baltics
A fine map, useful, and, well, I do think we have some very good SVG creators, but old maps just say history a bit more, y'know?
Articles in which this image appears
History of Scandinavia, History of Sweden, Johann Homann +1
FP category for this image
For once, an obvious choice: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Diagrams,_drawings,_and_maps/Maps
Johann Homann, courtesy of Geographicus.
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – a very nice old Homann map. Hafspajen (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment - the funny thing is that Johan Homan - with 1 n - s, is a kind of Sherlock Holmes figure in a long series of rather interesting detective stories written by a Swedish diplomat Jan Mårtenson. Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - (had a hard time getting here). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Gotta admit my only reason is I love old maps. This one would seem appropriate also as a cartographic artifact for Scandinavian Peninsula — of interest partly because Sweden appears somewhat bloated. (Too much lutefisk, Hafs?) Sca (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - No need to restore this one, looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as is, a restoration might remove some of the authenticity. --Janke | Talk 09:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Great image--Godot13 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I haven't done any cleaning up on this, but if that's desireable, I'd be delighted to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Aerial Photo of The City of Dana Point, California[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 05:40:21 (UTC)

Original – Aerial Photo of Dana Point, California
Great photo I took a few years ago that shows the entire city of Dana Point, California, a city located in southern Orange County, California. It has one of the few harbors along the Orange County coast, and with ready access via State Route 1, it is a popular local destination for surfing.
Articles in which this image appears
Dana Point, California
FP category for this image
Portal:Geography/Featured picture
--talk→ WPPilot  05:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominatortalk→ WPPilot  05:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nothing really striking about this image, is there? What Commons Featured Pictures call "wow". I mean if it was fantastically encyclopaedic, that wouldn't matter. But it's not that either. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Coat. Sca (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support I rather like this photo. While I agree that it doesn't have a huge deal of 'wow factor', it does provide a very clear and high quality illustration of the topic of the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - This could be clearer, perhaps (though out of a moving plane I don't know how clear we'd expect this to be). However, I have to say I like the idea of providing images which position a city within its landscape, rather than the omnipresent photomontages of famous landmarks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Abdul Harris Nasution[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 02:50:16 (UTC)

OriginalAbdul Haris Nasution at a party in 1977. Nasution was an Indonesian general (one of only three to ever hold the title Jenderal besar) who was twice appointed Army Chief of Staff and who escaped an assassination attempt during the 1965 coup attempt by 30 September Movement. In the 1960s Indonesian newspapers speculated how well he'd do as president, and he was made a National Hero of Indonesia in 2002.
I've been sitting on this for almost a year, to be honest. This is easily the best image of an Indonesian general we have, but the pose is not as dynamic as some of our portraits. Nonetheless, I think it's time to give it a shot. Decent resolution, sharp, good quality.
Articles in which this image appears
Abdul Haris Nasution, National Hero of Indonesia
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military, probably
Punt/Anefo (released under a CC license by the National Archives of the Netherlands); restored by Chris Woodrich
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Few white specks on the coat, otherwise very good, and I'm sure they'll be gone pretty quickly. Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • White specks gone after going back to the original PSD file (I still have it, amazingly enough). Uploaded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Still one on his tie, but think that's the end of it. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
        • D'oh. And that's that, gone now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - because it's a historical image, definition needs much to be desired. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - historical EV (and best image/portrait in the article)-Godot13 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mehmed VI[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 02:44:07 (UTC)

Original – The last sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Mehmed VI.
A reasonably high-quality carte-de-visite photograph by the sultan's official photographer. Not that that's in the article yet; I really need to make one on Sébah & Joaillier. It was an interesting cleanup job: there was blue fibres stuck to the lower right, and brown marks across the middle. Hence why I haven't had a lot of nominations this week.
Articles in which this image appears
Mehmed VI +1
FP category for this image
Well, a sultan is both a religious, royal, and political figure... I'd say Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political are probably the most significant?
Sébah & Joaillier, restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice restoration, decent quality image. Just a nitpick (I seem to have them a lot now, don't I?): there seems to be a fingerprint on the far right side of the card, at the border, about 200 pixels lower than his shoulder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Historically significant. Sca (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per Sca --Godot13 (talk)

Albert Einstein[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 08:01:51 (UTC)

OriginalAlbert Einstein during a lecture in Vienna in 1921
Alt 1
1921 etching published 1921 in a limited edition of 43 impressions
Fixed issues raised by first nomination. Highest ev for any other image.
Articles in which this image appears
Albert Einstein and History of Germany (highest EV)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Ferdinand Schmutzer
  • Support either as nominatorThe herald 08:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question/comment - This has quite a bit of dust which could be removed. Also, where was this published before 1923? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure what are the quality requirements here, I am more used to Commons'. The quality of the picture is not so good IMO, even for that time (the forehead is overexposed). Personally, I'd rather like it in B&W. And anyway, at least some cleaning is needed, which I did here: File:Albert Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Yann:--How's the alternate.??--The herald 14:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Support Alt1. For the copyright, I agree with Coat of Many Colours below. It was most probably published in 1921, and even if published later, most probably without a notice. And even if published with a notice, it is most probable that the copyright was not renewed. I think we are safe enough on that ground. Yann (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Striked my comment. It seems the situation has changed. Yann (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original or Alt1 (prefer Alt1) I think the proposed version is worth supporting. The original appears to be this at the Austrian National Library and I've added a link to the Commons description. I agree with Yann I prefer B&W. A crop of this image previously failed Featured because the nomination was spoilt by socking. This is an iconic photo of Einstein as an old man which is Featured. I certainly think we should have the younger one as a foil. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • What we need is proof of publication before 1923, because otherwise this may be in copyright in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's been around on Commons a long time. On Commons it's accepted that date of publication is taken to be date of creation unless otherwise known to be the case, simply because of the difficulty in establishing a date of publication. Even were it known to be published after 1923 it would still be quite likely PD in the US because in all likelihood it wasn't published in compliance with US formalities, although there may be URAA issues. For example Commons:File:Albert Einstein Head cleaned.jpg above was copyrighted in 1947 but not renewed, so LoC take the view its PD. Why can't we just take the PD status of Commons Files on trust? It's their job to vet the status of their images. Plainly in blatant cases of copy vios which have escaped attention we should intervene, but otherwise it seems to me that we should just mind our own business and let them mind theirs. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Crisco 1492:--will this do any good Crisco for the date? They say 1921..The herald 15:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That unfortunately only establishes the date of creation. The Berne convention stipulate date of publication, which essentially means making it avilable to the public for copying. However by 1921 Albert Einstein was amongst the most celebrated physicists of his age. It's likely this image was published at the same time (as a book cover perhaps). I don't suppose it was a family snap (I rather doubt he did those). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I'd still like to see proof of publication. Otherwise, I sadly have to oppose for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Comment Well, that's very disappointing and sets a bad precedent (if that's indeed what it is, is it?) for the forum. I'm not being obstructive when I say it's a real issue at Commons and that matter of factly policy is to accept date of creation as date of publication. I've been there with this debate: see my gripe about my tribulations over copyright issues as a nooby editor, where precisely this is raised. This worth quoting from that I think:
"What transpired was that right from the beginning obstacles were put in my way by editors who take upon themselves the policing of copyright in Wikipedia. A user Sfan00 IMG flagged for deletion a whole series of pre-1923 local uploads of works still in artists' copyright as possibly URAA breaches. This turned out to be entirely specious, simply flat-out wrong. But what was actually comical was that when I turned to the Teahouse, support group for newbies, an adviser there with no absolutely no avowed expertise in copyright issues whatsoever, whom I rather strongly suspected of knowing less about copyright than I did, took it upon himself to defend the deletions on the grounds that there was no evidence the works had been "published" pre-1923. My reasonable replies, on which I spent significant time, were simply rejected. When I actually presented an impeccable provenance and exhibition history for one of the works prepared by the National Gallery of London, he airily dismissed that as not proof of "publication". In the end it transpired he had no idea what constitutes "publication" and that in any case the issue had been debated and settled before in favour of my position. It's no accident that the invitation to the Teaparty no longer graces this page."
The article start in question was Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900. The painting I refer to above was Oskar Kokoschka's Portrait of Lotte Franzos (a local upload because it's not PD in Austria). This famous and beautiful painting, created in 1909, was immediately controversial. It's unthinkable that it wasn't "published" i.e. illustrated in one of the very numerous art magazines of the time, when it was first exhibited in 1911. Yet to provide "proof" of this publication would be a major undertaking that even the National Gallery of London could not supply in its Immunity from Seizure filing it made for the exhibition.
It's frankly tedious to continue contributing to debates like this. Eventually one gives up in frustration as I indeed did with almost my entire project when I started my account.
I urge editors to ignore this specious copyright issue raised here, really not our concern, when considering their support for this image.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Policy is to accept date of creation as date of publication"... really now? That's not my experience, and in fact I've seen several images taken in the 1940s be deleted because there was no proof that they were published at the time. For, say, an Australian photograph in which the year of creation is taken into consideration (and not publication), that might not be a problem, but for this image there are major issues. We should not knowingly promote a possible copyright violation as FP. Period. Possible copyvios are far from "Wikipedia's best work". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I should have thought that was obvious. See my comment below. (Also, if you are saying it's commons "policy", please do link to said policy) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggested to Stefan2 that he was Sfan00 IMG and he said he wasn't. The Tea House edit was some other editor. Stefan2 (as Stefan4 of Commons) was wrong to call the Chilkat blanket I uploaded a "sculpture". Busy rest of day, return this evening. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Stricken as I had misunderstood which Stefen/Sfan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Rereading the debates over the Vienna exhibition, it appears you are paraphrasing a quote by Stefan2, namely "This problem is sometimes discussed on Commons, and Commons has more or less accepted that the date of publication is impossible to find, so Commons typically uses the date of creation instead." I should note again that this is for paintings, not photographs. Data of creation is generally not enough for a photograph to survive a deletion nomination at Commons (in my personal experience, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed, as conceded by the great Stefan2/4/etc. himself. And I can quote a long standing administrator at Commons in support as well. So there we are. It is exactly as I said i.e. to say Commons policy is to accept creation date as publication date failing evidence to the contrary. As for Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, of course that was "published" before 1923, Picasso long an established artist and the painting long iconic.
In this case we have a photograph of a similarly celebrated public figure which was plainly taken for the purpose of illustrating some work or other and there's every reason to suppose it was published at around the same time and no good reason to suppose it wasn't. So why the attitude here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I think it is very sad that you oppose because of copyright issue. As I said above (did you read me?), even if we don't have a definitive proof, I think there is only one chance in a million that it is not in the public domain in the US. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alt 1: Why do we have to desaturate photographs that were taken by a method that was genuinely sepia toned, and thus make them look like they were taken by another method? Disregard if the sepia tone is an a filter or something, but I'd presume it wasn't. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Adam Cuerden: How do you know that the original in in sepia tone? Additionally, I think it isn't even really sepia. It looks more yellow to me. Anyway, the sepia tone is added on the print. The negative is not sepia. Yann (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, agree with Yann. I've already said in this forum (the Rotterdam image) how much I like sepia prints myself, but the archive print in the Austrian National Library isn't a sepia tint. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: the image is public domain in Austria and the US Regarding the origin and copyright status of this image it is a study by the portraitist F. Schmutzer, a member of the Vienna Secession and its president from 1914 to 1917. Schmutzer did not intend his studies to be pubished, they were for his own private use. His studies were discovered in 2001 and sold to the Austrian National Library. It follows that this image could not have been published before 2001 and thus not within 50 years of its creation (1921), in turn making it public domain in both the United States and Austria.
Once again I plead that editors do not let these specious copyright concerns deter them from supporting fine images such as this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unpublished until 2001. Per the Hirtle Chart, this would have been considered published in 2001 in the United States and is thus in copyright until at least 2047. I'm nominating for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you take it to a copyright forum first please, to make sure of the facts before nominating for deletion this long-standing multi-linked file. As I read the the Hirtle chart, it was first published abroad 2001 (purchase by a national archive constitutes publication) and in the public domain in Austria at the URAA date (Schmutzer died in 1925). So we are instructed to go to US publication chart to determine status and we have never published, never registered - "Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author" {{PD-US-unpublished}}. That's how I read the chart. @Stefan: Stefan will know - not that he responds to my pings very much Face-smile.svg. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Hirtle chart was published on Cornell's website first (but given a CC license). Have another read of {{PD-US-unpublished}}; for the 70 years pma to apply here, the images would have had to first been published in 2003 or later. This is in-line with what the Hirtle chart says (Commons version): "Created before 1978 and first published between 1 March 1989 through 2002 = The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047 = earliest 2047)". If this had been published just two years later, this would have been free, but sadly it wasn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Query Aren't you looking in the wrong place? This is for work first published in the US. But this work was first published in Austria. The mere act of these images being purchased by a a national archive constitutes publication in US case law. QED. My money is on Cornell. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Cornell - "Published abroad after 1 March 1989"
Published in a country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention - 70 years after the death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication.
Blame Cornell. Can't really be arsed with this any more. Sorry. A real expert like Stefan no doubt will be along in a while. Love you loads, Stef. No really. Honest Indian, swear by my blanket and everything. Peace pipe. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even if we do assume that date of creation = date of publication (which is not my experience, and I am aware of no policy which suggests otherwise)- I think we need something a little stronger than "oh well, I suppose it's PD" for a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Subject: Bild Nummer 5103991
Can you comment please for me on the the Public Domain status in the United States (and indeed in Austria) of your holding inv. no. 5103991. This is a B&W glass negative portrait of Albert Einstein by Ferdinand Schmutzer, portraitist and President of the Vienna Secession 1914-1917, dating from 1921. I believe it was purchased by your library in 2001 along with other recently discovered negatives by Schmutzer. Is that correct? If not perhaps you can tell me when it was first published. I know that Schmutzer's images of Sigmund Freud are contested by the Freud estate. As far as I know there are no claims on his images of Albert Einstein. I would be grateful if you could confirm that as well.
I'll report back if I hear anything. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've had confirmation from the ANL that the image was purchased in 2001 (copied to the nomination for deletion pages). This indeed means that the image is in their copyright until 2027 per article 4 Directive 2006/116/EC because it was published after the author's copyright had expired (on a point of clarity if had been published while in copyright then the ordinary term 70 year pma applies: thus if it had been published in 1998 - Schmutzer dying in 1928 according to Wikipedia - it would have entered PD the year following in the normal way).
The PD status in US not clear to me. I'm consulting source text tonight, if necessary US case law. I want to save this fine image at least for Wikipedia with a local upload. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have uploaded the Schmutzer etching (thumbnailed) to Commons:File:Albert Einstein, Etching by Ferdinand Schmutzer 1921.jpg and posted at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Albert_Einstein_photo_by_Ferdinand_Schmutzer to enquire whether the 1921 publication of the etching is adequate to establish publication within the terms of the Berne Convention for the photo. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

God Speed redux[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2014 at 09:17:02 (UTC)

OriginalGod Speed, a 1900 painting by British artist Edmund Leighton, depicting an armored knight departing to war and leaving his beloved. The woman ties a red sash around knight's arm, which he is meant to return, a medieval custom which assured both parties that they would be reunited, alive and well.
A version with higher resolution was uploaded since the first nomination, so giving it a second chance. Also, improves our coverage of artists less known than Rembrandt or van Gogh. Brandmeistertalk 09:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Articles in which this image appears
God Speed, Edmund Leighton, 1900 in art, 2012 in art
FP category for this image
Edmund Leighton

Great Mosque of Central Java[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2014 at 05:48:52 (UTC)

Original – The Great Mosque of Central Java (Masjid Agung Jawa Tengah) is a mosque in the city of Semarang, Central Java. Completed in 2006, it has room in the building and courtyard for over 15,000 worshipers.
Well, we've got a church down there, and a Chinese temple... I don't think I've nominated a mosque yet! I had a hell of a time taking this. After failing to take a decent image from the viewing level (owing to a concrete skirt around it, which got in the way) I went to the (closed) 18th floor to try and take an image through the glass, but it was so dirty that it didn't work. I tried to take an image from the very top of the tower, standing next to the lightning rod. No good, still stone blocking the photograph. Finally I ended up going back to the viewing level, standing on a stool, and sticking my camera out of the tower, through the bars, to get the whole darned thing in view. The results, however, are pleasing (at least to me). This appears to be the best aerial view of the mosque online in terms of composition (we have the dome, the three buildings, and even most of the the courtyard), and resolution is certainly not lacking either!
Articles in which this image appears
Great Mosque of Central Java
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Chris Woodrich
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support A no brainer. A beautiful, breathtaking and thorough view of the subject (and its surrounding environment), and a very good technical achievement despite a few slightly misfocused source pictures. - Blieusong (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hafspajen (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. An interesting view and extremely high resolution image. One question though: Could you not correct the verticals? It's just as nice/useful for views looking down as it is for views looking up. I wonder if it might introduce too much distortion at the bottom though. Just wondering if you tried it though, even a partial correction would be worth a try. Perhaps upload it as an alternative? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I did try, but I couldn't get anything I would accept (needs a fair bit of rotation, which means the horizon ends up a little wonky). As I didn't save that "experiment", I'll try again to see if I can upload an alt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
      • And that's a no go... even after going back to the source panorama (which has some room for changes), the necessary rotations leave a lot of dead space which one would have to fill in digitally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Ok, no problem. It's still great as-is. I know the feeling, you only get one chance under difficult circumstances and then find that you haven't left much room for adjustments. Sometimes (as per the Temple Church nom), I wish I'd shot just a bit wider. It's hard to visualise the stitched composition when you're shooting. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Preachin' to the choir. I'd love to retake the interior at Gedangan from a little bit further back, or Pendem Temple (no article yet) without missing that one frame. Maybe some day... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support One word - amazing! Angle makes the mosque look big. Seems like a tourism commercial/ad. ///EuroCarGT 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (Well, it is pretty darn big. 15k worshipers isn't a figure to sneeze at. Those six umbrellas are each something like 20 or 30 feet tall. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC))
      • Well I'll be damned. The Indonesian Wikipedia gives 20 metres (66 ft) for each umbrella (sadly unreferenced).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Great shot.--Godot13 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It is a great shot.--talk→ WPPilot  06:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support! Jee 17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In the Turret[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 22:30:46 (UTC)

OriginalIn the Turret - a BEP vignette depicting the interior of a gun/cannon turret in an early to mid-19th century naval vessel. The image was used on the right obverse of the $100 Interest Bearing Note during the early to mid 1860s.
High quality, high EV. Detailed depiction of the interior of a naval cannon turret (not previously illustrated in the article).
Articles in which this image appears
Art and engraving on United States banknotes, Gun turret and Naval artillery
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Restoration by Godot13.
  • Support as nominatorGodot13 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. Probably going to have more EV when your new article comes out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Given the day, I wanted to nominate this, but the EV is not there without the article...--Godot13 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Looks as if it might have been intended to represent the turret of the USS Monitor, which contained two 11-inch Dahlgren guns — although other Civil War vessels also were armed with Dahlgrens — see USS Passaic (1862). The interest-bearing note was dated 1864; Monitor was lost at sea in 1862. Sca (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added a new primary article for the image's use.--Godot13 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar, 1864[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 17:04:36 (UTC)

Original – Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar, 1864
150 old picture of a famous personality, by a famous photographer. Already FP on Commons. Renom. after further restoration.
Articles in which this image appears
Sarah Bernhardt, Nadar (photographer)
FP category for this image
picture by Nadar (1820-1910), uploaded, restored and nominated by Yann
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope it is OK this time. Personally, I doubt doing more restoration on the background add value to the image.
  • Still a couple of water stains (on her hair and on her dress). Weak support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. Nadar is a great artist, about the technical part - I let the others decide. Hafspajen (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Coat and Haffy: Could the two of you bold your supports, to make counting easier? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Annie Besant in 1897[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 14:27:50 (UTC)

Original – Annie Besant in 1897
Old high resolution picture of a famous personality, with restoration.
Articles in which this image appears
Annie Besant
FP category for this image
photographer unknown, uploaded, restored and nominated by Yann
Renomination with less contrast. Previous nom. had only a few reviews: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Annie Besant
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Fine quality but bad crop on sides..The herald 14:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @The herald: What crop do you want? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Right shoulder buddy..but fine and so Support--The herald 07:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - That's right about the crop, but the original looks damaged on the right side so I expect that's the reason. Brilliant signature above BTW! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 14:25:12 (UTC)

OriginalSnæfellsjökull is a 700,000-year-old stratovolcano with a glacier covering its summit in western Iceland.
High quality pic with a higher visibility
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Axel Kristinsson (from Flickr)
  • Support as nominatorThe herald 14:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems like an HDR, over-saturated. --///EuroCarGT 19:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • May be because of the reflection.?? eh..The herald 07:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's oversaturated... It was taken in the morning light (so everything is cast in a warm glow). I'm not sure about composition though, the way the photographer is kind of half way between the grass and the pond is unfortunate, it leaves the image looking slightly snapshotty. The light is great though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a very good image of Snæfellsjökull. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Romain Rolland on the balcony of his home[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 14:09:18 (UTC)

High value historical images with restoration: 100 year-old picture, and this year is the 70th anniversary of his death. Both pictures are precisely geocoded and described (see also the notes).
Articles in which this image appears
Romain Rolland
FP category for this image
unknown photographer from Agence Meurisse, uploaded and restored by Yann
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (both) - Excellent, excellent images. High praise. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support set. Have you found out what type of media these were originally? Still curious about those lines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The source says negative on glass. Yann (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided on the photos individually, but I think I oppose them as a set. They don't really form a whole, and don't really add much to each other. If there's going to be a promotion, I think it should be an either/or. I also think it's regrettable that these images are tucked away towards the bottom of the article- they come across as decorative, rather than high-impact, highly-valuable additions. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @J Milburn: There are only 2 taken on that day and that place, and I think they complement well each other: one showing the man, the other one more the environment. Did you look at the description? And what do you suggest about the article? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • This is one of those things where a question needs to be asked: Is there significance in this day, and is the balcony a significant place for him? Because I'm not quite sure I see how these are particularly more valuable than other images of him might be, and hence why both should be featured. Why is the background valuable? If there's good answers to these, then that makes the set obvious, and very valuable, if it's just two images from a random day, we may only want to feature one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks, good questions Adam. We don't have so many good quality images of R. Rolland, let alone free like these ones. AFAIK, there are also the only ones which are dated, and for which the location is known precisely. These are by far the highest resolution images of him we have. This is the balcony of his home, where he lived until 1914. He left for Switzerland at the beginning of WWI, after receiving death threats due to his vocal opposing to the war and nationalism. We can see in the background the monastary of the Sisters of Visitation, and on the right one, also the the cupola of the observatory of Paris. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, I can certainly support the profile view, but the face view... honestly, I'd be more inclinedtowards an IAR support of the article's lead image for that. The expression is a bit awkward on it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Signing of the Constitution of the United States[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 12:52:04 (UTC)

Original – "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States is a famous oil-on-canvas painting by Howard Chandler Christy, depicting the signing of the U.S. Constitution at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787"
Notable painting used in many articles, meets size requirements, high EV, good quality
Articles in which this image appears
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, Constitutional Convention (United States), American philosophy, List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Howard Chandler Christy, Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, George Washington, Originalism, Founding Fathers of the United States, Powers of the United States Congress, United States Congress, United States Constitution, Independence National Historical Park, etc.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Howard Chandler Christy
  • @Coat of Many Colours: I did not know that the pixel count needed a source (unless I misunderstood the question); sorry! I found the image at The Indian Reporter, and then balanced the colors in comparison to other images (including the previous uploaded ones). I am still learning about copyright, so please forgive me if I did anything inadequate. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that's fine. I'll add the source to the Description file and put a formal support vote below. You did a good job on the colour balance I think. Incidentally someone should really find a place for this Cristy image (Feminism?)
That image also caught my attention. It could probably also be used in Women in the military.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I'll make the edit some time the next few days if I don't see you making it. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you consider it this way, but understand the decision. I'd find a higher pixel size to help, but this is the largest one in the web; I think this is also understandable considering the large size of the painting. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I understand the concern raised about the resolution, but it does meet the requirements and is good enough for all practical purposes. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - MarshalN20, now remember this is nothing personal, you seems to be a very nice editor. This I really mean. But one thing is the problem mentioned above. The other is a stylistic problem. Painter lived 1873 – 1952, well fairly recently, the artist is obviously indulging in nostalgia for a distant past. The artist must have based its details on older paintings he had seen in museums, without being able to work from direct experience of the period in which the events took place. As a result, there is an uneasy feeling, not because it is unusual to depict other eras. It doesn't need to be condemned simply because it did not originate in the period being represented. Painters of many periods, for example, have depicted Biblical scenes without ever having witnessed them at first hand, The evident nostalgia, however, for a time not actually in the artist's experience is not unlike trying to paint an imagined remote future Utopia, when "things will have gotten better". It is, a denial of the artist's own time—a wish to escape from it by retreating into fantasy. Well, one simple thing - would that really be possible that nearly all figures that day are wearing green, the same green as the curtains? (And tablecloth...) Hafspajen (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Well you can say much the same about a similar historical painting Commons:File:Declaration independence.jpg which did make it to Featured picture status. And where's all this stuff in WP:FP? anyway? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No, not quite the same, Coaty. There is a very fine difference. John Trumbull lived 1756–1843, what he painted happened 1776, he was 20 at the time. Howard Chandler Christy was born c. 100 years after what he depicted happened. (About where that stuff is - remember discussion aesthetic judgment?) Hafspajen (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't suppose Trumbull was working from photographs. I did put up a link to a discussion of this painting because it provides a useful reference image. Without reading it in detail, I gathered it was making the point that the painting was an allegory of the American consciousness, and that stikes me as about right, although discussions about the merits of a painting are neither here nor there in this forum. It's the merits of the image that we are concerned with here, whether it has encyclopaedic value and so on. I didn't enter into any discussions with you about aesthetics. The only thing I can find in WP? about aesthetics is "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing".
Crisco's point about resolution is fair. I too was dismayed at the lack of fine detail in this image and that was why I queried the source. But WP? guidelines are at least 1,5000 pixels, and this image is 3,000 pixels wide. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: Trumbull's version. That was promoted six years ago, when standards were quite different. I'd probably oppose if that came up now. Yes, 1500 is the minimum, but for some subjects (say, really big structures, or really big paintings) more resolution may be expected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know the technical difficulties of getting a higher resolution picture, how feasible it is to ask for one. It's Rembrandt Nightwatch size (someone should nominate that for Featured]]. I imagine that was done with scaffolding? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: Nightwatch: Needs to be in an article first Face-smile.svg. I'm not 100% familiar with art photography, particularly as I've yet to see a painting here that I could photograph and upload freely to Wikipedia/Commons (and thus haven't bothered to take anything bigger than what would show up well on Facebook), but yes, scaffolding and taking several images which can be stitched together would probably work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
OH, I am pretty sure that Nightwatch by Rembrandt has already an article. Yes, there it is, The Night Watch, also the picture is already Featured, here File:The Nightwatch by Rembrandt.jpg, I remember there was a link to an article from the picture's name, it was from the Rembrandt article. Hafspajen (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That surely could be in the Rembrandt article, but the one the one thay have is already very agreeable and itself a Featured image with many links, so I shan't interfere with that. A long way ahead I plan a few Rembrandt edits. I might do an article on the Nightwatch, linking the new image. Incidentally Godot13 has a to die for engraving of the Trumbull painting at FPC. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I am still of the oppinion that as an artwork of a historical event it is rather schematic. But you can take Crisco's more down to earth motivation, then. Hafspajen (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The positions taken by Hafspajen and Crisco have merit, but there is a flaw in their conclusion. The question asked here is whether the image in question meets the guidelines for it being a Featured Picture in Wikipedia. The answer is, as explained by Coat of Many Colours, a simple yes. However, Hafspajen's and Crisco's views are valid towards the idea that the image could be improved; however, this only leads me to consider that pictures in Wikipedia, like articles in Wikipedia, are a work in progress. Even after reaching featured status, images and articles in Wikipedia can still be made better (I'm sure technology in the future will lead to much more aesthetically pleasing images). Of course, all editors are entitled to their own perspectives, and I also like to assume all of them are nice persons. [;)]--MarshalN20 Talk 14:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sony Alpha 77 II[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 09:03:04 (UTC)

A set of images illustrating the Sony α77 II camera from three key angles and taken to professional brochure/advert quality and style. Low-key lighting was chosen rather than an "isolated on white" approach. The result is more desirable and engaging than the usual "eBay listing" style. All the critical features of the camera are clearly visible and the overall form and shape of the body and lens are emphasised. Thus meeting the FP criteria of being both illustrative and eye-catching.
Articles in which this image appears
Sony Alpha 77 II, Low-key lighting
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

The Fringes of the Fleet[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 15:14:12 (UTC)

OriginalThe Fringes of the Fleet is a 1915 book by Rudyard Kipling, poems from which were set to music by Edward Elgar. More on that soon.
ALT – Background removed
While it has fairly low "Wow" factor, this is the first edition cover to a notable book, and, as such, has very high EV. This version has been somewhat cleaned, but I didn't want to clean it so much that it looked like some new printing, when it's a year short of a hundred years old.
Articles in which this image appears
The Fringes of the Fleet
FP category for this image
WP:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations, I guess.
Macmillan and Co., prepared and cleaned by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - This isn't actually the version used in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • *shiftyeyes* I don't know what you're talking about Chris, of course it's the version used in the article. Check again. I wouldn't be that stupid. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Say, what is this this blue phone box here..... oh yes, indeed. Never never. Say, support for the good quality scan of a first edition of a notable book. Before someone comments on the border around the book, I should note that the edges don't quite appear to be straight, and thus cropping to a true straight line may misrepresent the object (although, Adam, a black background like Godot's note scans may be more dynamic) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
          • That would probably require rescanning and redoing the restoration. Because the book is relatively thin, the white on the lid was more visible than it normally is, giving the grey. I've never been entirely happy with an attempt to change a background colour. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I'll see if I can have a go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT added, Support original or alt1 (prefer the alt). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original or alt1 (prefer the alt) per Crisco. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original, Oppose alt. Photographing something "on white" or "on black" really needs to be done at capture or with very skilful Photoshopping + a bit of downsizing. Here, the cut out is fairly crude and has included the dark grey shadow the book casts on the light-grey/white paper (a mix of spine and shadow here, which is hard to separate). I think it valuable to see the soft/frayed edge of the book. -- Colin°Talk 14:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My original cut-out had excluded the spine, though Adam requested that it be included. I agree, that area is a bit crude. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry! It just seemed a bit flat without it... Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
        • (I think Colin's including some other areas outside of that area as well, though... didn't mean to seem to blame you). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't think it is easy/possible to tell what is spine and what shadow but it sure looks odd against the solid black. -- Colin°Talk 15:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I could probably burn the spine/shadow area to make the jump less "jumpy" for lack of a better term, or revert to the previous version.... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
              • And that doesn't work. Oh well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Original is better. Yann (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

U-21 sinking the Linda Blanche[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 13:52:43 (UTC)

OriginalU-21 sinking the Linda Blanche, a painting by Willy Stöwer, the Kaiser's favourite naval painter.
A rather fine artwork by a notable WWI painter. The depiction of the U-boat is quite good, the Linda Blanche not very, but then, it's not like he could ask England for pictures of the ship his country just sunk.
Articles in which this image appears
Willy Stöwer, SM U-21 (Germany)
FP category for this image
WP:Featured pictures/History/WWI
Willy Stöwer
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some water damage and browning near the edges. If you want to put this through as is, fine, but I just thought I'd point it out. I'd fix the first one, personally — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We don't normally like to clean paintings, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Right. I seem to have thought this was a lithograph like the earlier ship images (which you do clean). What's the original size of this painting? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it's watercolour, so probably not huge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, nitpick: U-21 is a dab page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Oddly enough, the text of SM U-21 (Germany) doesn't mention the sinking of the Linda Blanche, and neither does the corresponding German article [2]but this illustration is included in SM U-21 (Germany) anyway. Komisch. Sca (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Long story short: U-21 sunk a lot of ships; this is a good illustration of it doing so. I suppose that I do have sources to add the Linda Blanche in, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • And for what it's worth, I'm planning on expanding the U-21 article in the near term. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC);s
Support. You don't have a good image for James Clark The Great Sacrifice, an immensely popular WW1 print, by any chance Adam? I uploaded an image from The Art Newspaper earlier this year, but looking out for a better. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I probably could have a decent go at finding it, but it's not going to be soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Would appreciate it. I was thinking Imperial War Museum perhaps? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I live the opposite side of the country (possibly soon to become me living in a different country to London - Scottish independence referendum, you know), but it was originally published in The Graphic, and that's a pretty commonly-held newspaper in libraries - much easier. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I might head back too (half of me hails from Boleskine). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Alright, assuming this isn't crazy big, it's good enough resolution for FP IMHO. Good example of the artist's work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Crisco, and I like this picture. It has atmosphere. Hafspajen (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Hafs, it creates a mood and uses dimensionality well.--Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Awesome picture!--MarshalN20 Talk 01:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Aesthetically, I like the picture too, but before it's FP'd the U-21 article [3] absolutely should be expanded (if only a little) to include the sinking of the Linda Blanche — evidently, an American vessel sunk before the U.S. entered WWI, thus historically interesting. Sca (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 02:45:44 (UTC)

Original – The Unisphere in Flushing Meadows - Corona Park, New York City, USA
Good quality and decent EV
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Flapane on Italian Wikipedia
  • Support as nominatorNikhil (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hate to bring this up, but should there be concerns about the copyright status of the sculpture? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Lovely picture. That's right about copyright since Freedom of Panorama doesn't extend to sculptures in the US, but it's OK if it was installed before 1977 without a copyright notice (or one that was renewed), as the vast majority of such works were. I've added the appropriate template. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You need to differentiate between the sculpture and the photograph there. The photograph is certainly not PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That's understood of course. Usually these descriptions don't explicitly make the distinction. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It's best practice to include a way to differentiate them. Adam differentiates between the copyright of the source work and his restoration (restorations attract new copyright in the UK), and when I've been asked to note the copyright of a structure on a description page I've generally separated the copyright for the structure and the photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Just went to do it and saw you've already done it. In future I'll make the distinction, but as I say the vast majority of these files don't. It's logical to make the distinction and it might serve a purpose in educating the surprising number of people who imagine just donating an image they took themselves confers PD on the image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This gives me the strong impression that they had copyrighted the statue. I'd hope for an RS that says it is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Why does that document suggest to you it had been copyrighted? I'm not being obstructive when I note that most artworks weren't copyrighted at the time. That's just a fact. I've seen a figure of 90% quoted as not copyrighted. Of course it can be easily checked, but I should hope it needn't go to that. It's been on Commons nearly three years and no one's challenged it despite the extensive patrolling that site receives. I appreciate the criteria say the work should be PD but there's no cause to challenge it's not, and that's not what we're about, the original issue raised here doubtlessly in ignorance of US copyright law. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
        • No entries for Gilmore D Clarke (the landscape artist who designed the work and presumably owns any copyright) at the US Copyright Office. You have to present yourself in person for registrations before 1978. There are various records for "Unisphere", but these refer to a jazz suite by Dave Brubeck performed at the World Fair. I think there's due diligence here and we need not worry about copyright Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I know we'd have to go in person, which is why I didn't rely only on that source (we could also find PDFs of the actual records, but my connection can't handle that). I believe that source suggests United States Steel is the copyright holder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Also, Commons lets copyvios get by all the time. I wouldn't take 3 years on Commons as proof that someone has looked into this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
            • The document talks about the World Fair registering the Unisphere's image as a trademark. The copyright of the work itself, however, belongs to the creator on my understanding and that doesn't seem to have been registered. I suggest you raise it at one of the copyright forums. @Stefan2: Stefan will know. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
          • It was constructed over 1963 and 1964 so (if it has a notice) which year was it published? If 1963 then copyright would have to have been renewed (1991?). Can we check for renewal with certainty? (I am out of my depth so these are remarks and not statements of fact.). Thincat (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Hi Thincat. Thanks for responding. I was looking for renewals when I searched at US Copyright. I didn't see any. Just the Dave Brubeck quartet thing (which I must search out and have a listen). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Hi. I couldn't find anything either, but I don't know how to do these things properly. If it was first published in 1964 I don't think it would have needed renewal. Thincat (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Missed the first question: the copyright holders (US Steel) were very strict about enforcing the copyright on images which reproduced the statue (note how they required copyright notices be included for all published photographic reproductions). This attention to copyright suggests they would have copyrighted the original statue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
                • The problem with looking for a renewal is that the absense of a renewal is not proof that this has lapsed into PD territory. See the Hirtle chart: 1964 through 1977 (Published with notice) expires 95 years after publication date (earliest 2060). No renewal necessary. All we need is proof of notice (hard to do unless we check the whole sculpture) and registration (much simpler). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • K, I've been through's scans, and the only copyrights for the Unisphere I found were photographic representations of it. Guess this is PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Concerning the copyright question, the outcome of the discussion is that its public domain status is confirmed. It would be a pity if editors refrained from supporting this fine image out of scruples over copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, sharp enough, tourists add scale (and thus I don't mind them). Though I'd put this in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Added the same. Thanks for your suggestion. Nikhil (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in replying. I have asked the author for the same and am awaiting his reply. Thanks. Nikhil (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi there, I'm the original uploader. I've just added geocoding tags on Commons page. Thanks for letting me know. --Flapane (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. It's a very nice photo, but looking more closely, I found myself rather distracted by the building with flag seemingly floating behind the sculpture, its base obscured by the fountains. Crop also feels rather tight at the top. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's a very nice photo, but looking more closely, I found myself rather distracted by the flowerbed and its colors in the foreground. The picture would have been much cleaner and clearer if the photograph was standing in such manner that the flowerbed was behind him. The turist I don't mind. Hafspajen (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sgùrr nan Gillean[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 19:10:52 (UTC)

Original – Sgùrr nan Gillean from Sligachan, Isle of Skye
It's a crisp, high resolution, aesthetically pleasing view of the mountain of Sgùrr nan Gillean, as well as the surrounding landscape and vegetation. Weather and visibility was close to perfect. The image is 40 megapixels and sharp at 100%.
Articles in which this image appears
Sgùrr nan Gillean and Cuillin
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 19:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - another excellent pic meeting all requirements. I can confirm sharpness at 100% Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Another great landscape image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support excellent quality and great work as usual. Nikhil (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems good! Looks like a wide angle lens, not quite sure if your using the 5D Mark 3 or a better full-frame camera. ///EuroCarGT 03:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's still the 5D Mk iii. It's a stitched image which has been downsampled slightly. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • So it's a photomerge. Thought you were using a 16-35 or 17-40mm lens. ///EuroCarGT 03:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, with regret. Technically high standard but not an outstanding photograph. This is one of the most photogenic places in Scotland yet the landscape is not imaginatively captured nor is the time of day/year or weather showing it at its best [though it is far from the worst weather!]. The choice of viewpoint and wide-angle means the subject is quite small in the frame, which is particularly noticeable in thumbnail. The burn is rather dry so not adding any drama or interest. The relatively high viewpoint leaves the grassy moorland in the middle to fill much of the frame and stops the burn successfully leading the eye towards the peaks. Compare this and this, which make use of a bridge to add foreground interest. Compare this which has dramatic water. Compare this and this which have a considerably more photogenic time of year and day. The subject is great, but the other things are the difference between an FP and not. -- Colin°Talk 12:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know. One doesn't always have to have the dramatic effects in mind. Mountains are nice as they are, and this picture has it points as it is, right now. It shows a much wider area, which is good, and it is taken in the summer, so it can't be snow on top. The other ones show more of the rocks as a foreground, but this shows more of the whole area. Hafspajen (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I struggled with deciding between weak oppose and neutral. I'd be more comfortable with a straight oppose on Commons, as there simply isn't enough wow (esp for a subject that can be photographed with plenty wow). Mere technical utility isn't sufficient for en:fp either -- it needs a little magic to make it among the "finest". But nobody should let my vote influence their decision/opinion -- there are plenty fine attributes about this image too. -- Colin°Talk 08:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support *sigh* I think I'm guilty of judging this one what it could be rather than what it is. I've seen many wonderful photos of this mountain range on postcards and calendars that my reaction was a bit of a let down on seeing this. But looking at it again today, I see colours blending from warm rocks through green moorland to grey mountain tops to blue sky. This is what it looks like on a fine sunny summer's day, rather than on a calendar. -- Colin°Talk 16:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Face-smile.svg thanks, Colin. Hafspajen (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A very pretty picture and a good representation of the landscape. Pteronura brasiliensis 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • sorry, I usually add geocoding for all of my images, just forgot this one. Done now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Easy decision. Stunning photograph with fantastic EV. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations — to be closed[edit]

Nominations in this category are older than ten days and are to be closed. New votes will no longer be accepted.

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Closing procedure[edit]

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  4. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
  5. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
  5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
  6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  9. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
  10. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the July archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  11. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure[edit]

Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
  4. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  4. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  5. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.

If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
  6. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  7. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.

Recently closed nominations[edit]

Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three full days following closure and subsequently be removed.

Falkirk Wheel time lapse[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 19:32:16 (UTC)

Original – A time lapse of one rotational cycle of the Falkirk Wheel in Scotland.
This is something a bit different from me, a video time lapse of the rotational of the Falkirk Wheel, a unique boat lift in Scotland which raises the height of the boat by 24 metres to connect the Forth and Clyde Canal with the Union Canal. Although it is a video, it is, at 3840 x 2160, actually well above the minimum resolution requirements of an image and is 4k / Ultra high definition television compliant. The video itself is 6|10 seconds long, but covers a real time period of approximately 10 minutes.
Articles in which this image appears
Falkirk Wheel
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent video and my first introduction to this technical marvel. Great EV. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It is quite amazing. Apparently it's so well balanced that the total cost to run per day is less than £10. Probably a fact that should be included in the article if I can find a citation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice time lapse photography, very useful and encyclopedic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems a little too quick perhaps, though it's extremely well-shot. Could we slow it down slightly without making it too jerky? Also, next time you're roaming around Scotland, let us Scottish people know - it'd be nice to meet up. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I agree on reflection that it is a bit fast. It's comprised of 157 frames, which is 6.5 seconds at 24 fps. I could slow it down to 13 seconds at 12 fps but it would obviously become more jerky. I did actually investigate some kind of frame interpolation (something like Twixtor) but I couldn't get it to work well without some weird warping. Leave it with me and I'll see if I can improve it. At the very least I can bring it down to 12 fps. Unfortunately it was a bit of a flying visit to that part of Scotland (spent most of my time in the north-west around Skye!) but next time, I'll let you know! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I've uploaded a new version which is 15 fps and 10 seconds in length. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • support Very captivating, but a bit sad we don't see the boats entering the lifts... - Blieusong (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - nice work. Nikhil (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Colin°Talk 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Pteronura brasiliensis 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is webM.©Geni (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support! Jee 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Falkirk Wheel Timelapse, Scotland - Diliff.webm --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Placed it in Engineering and technology/Machinery, as there is already a picture about the Falkirk Wheel. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

City of Workers [edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 18:05:41 (UTC)

OriginalCity of Workers (German title: Arbeiterstadt) — A glimpse of the working-class environment in Berlin by Hans Baluschek, 1920.
A compelling work from the noted Berlin Secession artist Hans Baluschek, illustrating an article newly translated from German Wikipedia. (Nominated for DYK too.)
Articles in which this image appears
Hans Baluschek
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Hans Baluschek

  • Support as nominatorSca (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - There are two very different colour patterns in the history of this image... which ones are correct? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting reading about the artwork. (BTW; The art museum call it: Working-class City) Hafspajen (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Hans Baluschek entirely new to me. That's certainly a wonderful painting and a very nice museum image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Honestly thought I had already voted. Strange. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. That's one excellent painting. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Intriguing painting. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree this is a very compelling painting. Evocative. Fylbecatulous talk 14:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Hans Baluschek - Arbeiterstadt (1920).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Khao Ping Kan[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 16:20:06 (UTC)

Original – Ko Tapu (Tapu Island) is a 20 m tall islet in front of the Khao Phing Kan islands, in the Phang Nga Bay, in Thailand. The island belongs to the Phang Nga National Park and since 1974 is also known as James Bond Island, because the James Bond movie The Man with the Golden Gun was filmed there
Simply beautiful (good technical quality and crosses the other bars too)
Articles in which this image appears
Khao Phing Kan
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Diego Delso
  • Comment What's not so good? Your picture that you took? Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Whoops. Thanks for that. I definitely meant my picture wasn't so good. This one however is splendid and supported by me. Off-topic, but nearby there's a fish farm they take you to. The community live *above* the farm on stilts and erm ... *feed* it in a natural way ... just a thought the next time you buy a pack of juicy prawns from this part of the world Face-smile.svg. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I went to a restaurant-cum-fish farm yesterday. They never have to feed the fish, as customers just throw their leftovers in the water - splish, dinner's ready. (It's catch and release too, so they can grow fairly big) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - lovely image and, to me, just epitomises my memories of Thailand. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Object location added. Diego would have to add the camera location. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done and thanks a lot to Crisco 1492 for this nomination! Poco2 23:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Not sure how I missed this one...--Godot13 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Isla Tapu, Phuket, Tailandia, 2013-08-20, DD 36.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian one rupiah (first issue, first series)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 08:01:28 (UTC)

Original – One rupiah from the first issue (1945) of Republic of Indonesia banknotes. Sukarno depicted on the face and a smoking volcano on the front and back. Dated 17 October 1945, the notes were not actually issued until late 1946.
High quality, high EV. One rupiah from the first issue, first series of rupiah banknotes (dated 1945/issued 1946) in the year Indonesia claimed independence, which was recognized in 1949. Between issuance and independence, these notes were not recognized outside of Indonesia and had no exchange rate.
Articles in which this image appears
Banknotes of the Rupiah, History of the Indonesian rupiah
FP category for this image
Republic of Indonesia
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.
Image by Godot13.
  • Support as nominatorGodot13 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, yes, and yes! (sorry about the shampoo commercial). Lovely piece of history, even if the banknote could be cleaner. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - There's loads of cleaning (as Crisco says) that can be done here that I would support as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Ah, Indonesian money... That is what made Crisco exited. Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Respectfully (and mentioned once before), I am uncomfortable doing restoration work on an item that the Smithsonian has allowed me to digitize for them as an accurate and true record of the object (and its condition).--Godot13 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I know, but that red fiber looks like something foreign that got into the scanner. Sorry if it isn't, but that was my impression. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Scanner dirt is another issue... Can you locate/annotate the fiber in question on the commons file so I can see? Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I struck my comment. You can see red fibres at 100% in the vicinity of the right text box on the reverse side, but I don't think that's scanner dirt but rather artefacts from the red over-printing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The upper borders of the note's obverse as well... but yeah, looking again it appears to be some kind of ink or pencil marking... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:IND-17-Republik Indonesia-1 Rupiah (1945).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Temple Church, London, UK[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 23:49:18 (UTC)

These four images illustrate, in high resolution, different aspects of the Temple Church, a small but notable 12th century church in London built by the Knights Templar. I was given special permission to photograph this church so there were no visitors walking around to spoil the images.
Articles in which this image appears
Temple Church
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 23:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support! Hafspajen (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Nice images of a (an) historic edifice. Sca (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent images. Thanks for sharing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - All superb... - Godot13 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - You don't really need my vote here, but you've won it with your beautiful HDR images. Another 50 image stitch? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • These ones are 30 images (3 columns x 2 rows x 5 exposures). I usually go for 50 when I need the additional two columns for horizontal width (in retrospect, the second image would have benefited from additional width to include more of the organ). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments (although minor conflict of interest seeing as I'm a member of Inner Temple and so this is my "work chapel"!) You had got your wests and easts muddled up in the captions, so I've changed that - the altar is at the east end, so photos from the altar towards the Round are looking west, etc. It's a shame that you've not got any exterior pictures of the building in this set, as the Round isn't really shown well in the photos we've got (although I know that positioning a camera is difficult here). However, I'm not entirely happy with File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg since it looks as though the Round is the Oval... surely the three central arches at the top of the Round ought to be the same width, not one narrow in the centre with one wide on each side? It looks too distorted compared to reality - compare [4] [5] for example. The other three images are excellent, but then I am biased! BencherliteTalk 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. Apologies for getting the ends mixed up. As for File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, it's not really possible to show this angle of view without some distortion. Yes, the 'roundness' of the Round is compromised slightly, but in the example you provided, the vertical columns are leaning inwards (due to the camera being pointed upwards). This is just a geometric limitation when projecting a three dimensional scene onto a two dimensional plane and you have to accept one kind of distortion or the other. It's generally accepted that for architectural photography, it's more important to keep verticals vertical except when distortion becomes too excessive (that's why you would never see a skyscraper photographed from nearby at ground level with corrected verticals). As for the three central arches and the expectation of them being the same width, no, I don't think that's the case. The central arch is facing directly towards the viewer but the two on either side are at an oblique angle (as they follow the circumference of the Round). It's the same as having three books standing up on a table facing the viewer and then twisting the two outer ones inwards. They present less of a face to the viewer and therefore 'appear' thinner. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Regarding my last point, I just realised that I misunderstood what you meant and you were actually suggesting that the middle arch was narrower, not wider. Although my point is still valid and the side arches would be narrower due to the angle of them, the width of the arch is also affected by distance to the viewer and the middle arch is further away than the side arches which contributes to it looking both narrower and shorter. There are a number of geometric factors at play here. In any case, I can't think of any other angles or views that would be an improvement on the image. Moving further back would have obscured the roundness of the Round, moving further forward would have increased the distortion of the Round, and shifting the perspective so that the vertical lean inwards would have been a distortion in itself and would reduce its usefulness as an architectural image IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I know I'm not going to win any technical argument with Diliff on architectural photography, and my opinions won't actually affect the final result, but... I went back into the church this lunchtime to look again at the views from the far west and the far east (photos 1 and 2). In both cases, the effect of the image is to make the church look much, much longer than it actually is. In photo 1, for example, there looks to be a massive distance between the first two pillars on each side, whereas in reality they are not far apart at all. Similarly, photo 2 makes the Temple Church look more like Winchester Cathedral in length. Photograph 3 is excellent, and I love photograph 4 of the organ (I'm listening to a CD of it that I bought today, having had the pleasure of giving two recitals there in the past - I particularly enjoy seeing the organist's copy of Jehan Alain's Litanies on the console!) So, the net result is that I just don't think that photos 1 and 2 are truly representative of the interior, fine images though they are, leading me to oppose 1 and 2 though I support 3 and 4. BencherliteTalk 12:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right, wide angle photography does often have the effect of making the interior space look larger than it actually is. If you were to crop images 1 and 2 and only keep the centre, suddenly that effect would largely disppear. I've had a similar debate to this with others, and what I keep finding is that, a) the eye perceives a scene differently to how a camera captures it, and b) some people are more sensitive to certain geometric distortions than others. Some, like yourself, are bothered by the way certain parts of the image appear larger than others. I might know the technical reasons why certain illusions/effects occur, but I can't argue with subjective opinions on what looks good or not. ;-) All I can say is that distortions are unavoidable in any wide angle view and the struggle to represent a subject both accurately and aesthetically is never easy! Thanks for your thoughts and your votes anyway. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Colin°Talk 11:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support Very nice technical achievement. Also, the result looks very natural despite the (I guess) very heavy processing behind it. On a subjective side, I'd only have straightened (?) the organ picture. - Blieusong (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Temple Church 5, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:Temple Church 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:Temple Church 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:Temple Church Organ, London, UK - Diliff.jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Woman with Mirrors[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 16:07:19 (UTC)

Original – one of Titian's painting with the theme woman reflecting herself in a mirror, similar to the painting Venus with a Mirror also by Titian, this picture being more an everyday scene, less glamorous and more down to earth.
Titian was an influential Italian painter and a painter who used colours in a very special way. He was a big colorist. The golden-reddish hair depicted here, like the hair colour used in many of the other works of Titian, is called Titian red , (also even darker tints) and are inspired of Tizian's luminous paintings and the golden-reddish tint he depicted on his modells, when the light is reflecting on the smoth surface of the depicted materials and hair.
Articles in which this image appears
Woman with a Mirror, Titian
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
  • Support as nominatorHafspajen (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Gorgeous scan of a great work of art. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. But the 'professionals' who photographed this (it wasn't scanned) have got dust on their sensor. There's a series of repeating dust bunnies all over the image, which suggests it was photographed as a mosaic with a small aperture (which exacebates sensor dust) and stitched. Unfortunate though, as it requires cloning over them and falsifying the cracks in the paint in order to fix it. Doable, but not as nice as not having them there in the first place. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support That's right about dust bunnies. There's one just above the eyebrow on the right of the image and that's repeated directly below on the bosom just above the dress. I'm surprised the 'amateur' who warmed this to their satisfaction let them go :) ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Be nice, Coaty, or I am going to bite you. Hafspajen (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Get you a four month ban if you do. But right, it's a splendid image, though I don't think its resolution is as good as my proposed new Van Gogh candidate you very nicely think too iconic to support. I challenge anyone to show me an a better ultra high resolution image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you don't. Keep up the nice, elegant, airy, mannerly coversation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Incidentally this is the same kind of IIP image used by the NGA for the Fragonard image below. If @Dcoetzee: can stitch these tiles with a script, as must be the case, it would be great if he can upload the ultra-high resolution version of that as well. For myself I can handle the Zoomify and NG scripts, but after that I'm defeated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Great image of a fantastic work. --Godot13 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Lovely ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Portrait d'une Femme à sa Toilette, by Titian, from C2RMF retouched.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Three Beauties of the Present Day[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 11:31:45 (UTC)

Original – Date about 1793 Utamaro, considered by many to be the greatest of the Ukiyo-e artists, is famous for his clear, precise and elegant drawings. This copy shows: (citation) the courtesans Ohisa and Okita and the singer Toyohina in a pyramidal formation. This pyramidal formation was an innovation of Utamaro's which was frequently copied by later ukiyo-e artists. Utamaro brought to the genre of figure prints a new ideal of feminine beauty. His drawings has influencer both Monet and Van Gogh developing a new style. The composition is unusual, and it is correct, it is cut of like this.
Kitagawa Utamaro (1753 – 1806) was a Japanese woodblock print (ukiyo-e) artist. Utamaro is famous for his portraits of feminine beauties, his close-up portraits of beautiful women marked an epoch in the evolution of the Japanese print called bijin-ga (pictures of beautiful women), that is depicting feminine beauty in the Japanese art history. Utamaro is one of the very best representant of this genre.
Utamaro, Ukiyo-e, Portrait painting and 45 other articles on different Wikis.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art
Kitagawa Utamaro

  • Support as nominatorHafspajen (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Needs categories on Commons (easily fixed). This might have EV in the article on Bijin-ga as well. Minor nitpicks, really. This is easily worth a support (blur is understandable, since the original object isn't even 40cm on its longest side yet this was scanned at 8k pixels). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Perhaps not Utamaro's most famous work, but illustrative of the genre. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Rather a well known Utamaro print ... one of his finest works , here and it is a special composition invented by Utamaro, videly copied later, and it is easy to compare with other works here. Also, this picture is used in many articles on all Wikis. (And it had enough pixels too...) Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Note there's already a featured Utamaro here, a beautifully restored version of this LoC print. Ukiyo-e prints don't age well and that pale chestnut-maroon of the robes probably started life as something quite different. They were used as packing paper in Van Gogh's time! He tried to set up a business in Paris selling them, but it wasn't successful. Degas and Mary Cassatt much influenced by them - more examples of Utamaro in one of my Cassatt sandboxes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Coat of Many Colours: That whole "packing material" meme is way exaggerated. Hokusai's Manga had been used as packing material by Félix Bracquemond's printer, and Monet may have found some prints in Holland that were used as wrapping paper. The pigments and apper are susceptible to degradation---compare an original to one of the Adachi reprints and see what a difference there is---you can see the clouds in the background of The Great Wave! Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I thought that was probably true of the packing paper story, still a good story. That's right about degrading. The quality of surviving copies of these prints varies enormously. Excellent user page of yours - worth checking out. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • AARGH! Don't read that! That was an early draft of the ukiyo-e page that's now up for FAC. I forgot to redirect it to the mainspace article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The other featured Utamaro is different, a single woman, but this print is using three women as a triangle , and it is a specific composition and a significant work of Utamaro. This composition was invented by Utamaro, and widely copied. And if you look at the category Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art, there is no such picture there, actually Bijin-ga is rather poorly represented among our Featured Pictures of East Asian art, weird enough, considering that representing feminine beauty (Bijin-ga) how significant part is of the famous Ukiyo-e Japanese prints. As for the print, old prints lok like this. Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
An East Asian art FP - Old prints look like this
  • One interjection: that's a 12th century print; there's quite a difference in appearance between 12th-century and a well-preserved 19th century print. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It say dated about 1793, same year when Louis XVI of France was guillotined... It is probably like 221 year old? Hafspajen (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Added. There's a nice Christie's set of deplorable images by Utamaro here incidentally if anyone's offering. Christie's don't keep their Zoomify images up for ever, so I would grab them quick if genuinely interested. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well done! I suspect Mary Cassatt probably didn't have this set in her collection (she had a few from Utamaro) but I'll keep it mind. I'll add to the Commons description when I have a moment. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it just me, or is this slightly purplish? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Hafspajen: I presume this is a response to my comment further up, not to it being purplish? Because I'm not quite convinced that hand-made paper tends towards purple most of the time, and most Ukiyo-es I've seen tend to age yellow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know Adam. It could be the paper is coloured, it fades downwards. These look like they have a colored background. Maybe to emphasize the witness of the skin. The Light skin in Japanese culture thing. Or... I don't know. It is possible to do many different prints from the same woodblock, and since they were handmade, they would look different, all of them, more or less. It is not like just having one painting and one possible faithful reproduction. They came out differen. Hafspajen (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
At thumb size the faces look whiter
  • Hmm. I'm not sure - the faces are normally very, very white in geisha prints, it seems odd they're slightly coloured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
James Tissot - Young Ladies Looking at Japanese Objects (NOT NOMINATED)
  • The white face is paint. Everything on a Japanese woodcut print is put there. If the use plain paper and skip the white print plate, then it will be no white face. And if you put only a little, it will be hardly noticeable, like here probably. It is a special technic they use, the Nishiki-e. A nishiki-e print is created by carving a separate woodblock for every color, and using them in a stepwise fashion, made by hand. They put the paper on the plate and push, once for lines, once for colors, details, extra colors, and so on. It is not a painting, it is a print. It all depends on how the actual print was made. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you tried to click on show details?, left upper corner ? IT reads like this, from The Toledo Museum of Art, USA,: (citation) Kitagawa Utamaro's interest in physiognomy, —the study of an individual's facial features as an indication of their character—helped lead to his skill at subtly altering the features of each face to create a sense of portraiture and individuality, such as the position and spacing of the eyes, the shape of the nose, and the placement of the ears. At the same time he retained a stylized, ideal beauty characterized by oblong faces and small eyes and mouths.Three Beauties demonstrates three new developments in Japanese printmaking that Utamaro helped make popular during the Edo period: the use of the so-called "big head" composition (okubi-e), which provides a close-up of each subject; the pyramidal formation of the figures; and the use of a sparkling mica-dust background (kirazuri) that sets off the soft matte tones of the faces. This print is one of at least three known states (versions with some variation of detail) of this design and includes a title cartouche in the upper right corner. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And Utamaro's prints look like this sometimes, se book cover Utamaro revealed here. Hafspajen (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree with User:Adam Cuerden that the colour of this print is too mauve/pink all over. The grey here is a warm pinkish grey. It should be a cool grey (not blue grey either but slightly yellowed, if anything). The overall colour cast needs tweaking slightly. It just mean that by whatever process this was reproduced, the balance wasn't quite right. Otherwise, it is a well-composed print.
    Also, this triangular composition may have been innovative in Japanese art, but it had become a common compositional device in Italian art in the 1300s.
    I would like to make some adjustments to the caption,before it's used. Amandajm (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mind you, I'm a little scared of another Olympia situation. I don't suppose anyone can actually look at it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and who did that Olympia-situation, if not Naughty-Coaty, before graciously joining the gang? Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ukiyo-e prints really don't keep well. Not only does the cheap newspaper quality paper tone a lot, the everyday printers' inks employed were also cheap and hopelessly fugitive. These prints were not destined for the fine art market but for popular consumption. That pale chestnut-marooon (ubiquitous in surviving examples of these prints) I mention above could have started life anywhere from red to green and in between. The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has one of the largest and finest collection of these prints, but as you can readily see they generally haven't aged well: Abalone Divers is typical. What should be at stake here is the authenticity. Has the file been digitally processed and if so is the result authentic (or if not, at least meritorious on aesthetic grounds). In this case it's the museum image image via Google Art Ptoject and so far it hasn't been tinkered with. So I don't think there any issues regarding authenticity to worry about here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ukiyo-e was printed on a variety of paper qualities for different audiences and purposes, from the luxurious to the relatively inexpensive, but I don't think you could call any of it "cheap newspaper quality". They were generally hand-made mulberry paper, and the full-colour nishiki-e prints in particular (that are synonymous with "ukiyo-e" in the West) had to be of higher quality to withstand the multiple impressions of the different colour woodblocks (up to twenty in some cases). Utamaro had the same publisher as Sharaku—Tsutaya Jūzaburō—who was known to employ lavish printing techniques such as dusting the backgrounds with mica. Remember, the audience for these prints were not poor farmers, but the wealthy urban bourgeois who could afford to spend their time and money whoring in the pleasure districts—people who had larger incomes than those in the ruling samurai class. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I admit to talking out of the box "newspaper quality", but it was nevertheless art for mass consumption was it not? And it was precisely that aspect that attracted Westerners such as Degas and Cassatt. That Adachi facsimile is beautiful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They were mass-produced, but "mass" is a relative term—According to this page, in the 19th century they were printed in edtions of a few hundred at a time, and the superstars such as Hiroshige could sell perhaps as many as 5–10,000 copies of their most popular prints. I seem to remember reading elsewhere that many earlier prints were special commissions, for exclusive private clubs and whatnot, in editions of possibly as low as single digits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looks like I started quite a debate with this poor picture. I really thougt that this one is going to be a singularly uncontroversial nomination, one of the most beautiful of Utamaro's production... and since we are so low on good pictures in the category Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/East Asian art... Hafspajen (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm not the right guy to ask about that sort of thing... This shouldn't affect this nomination, but here's a modern Adachi reprint, to give an idea of how much the colours have degraded. Of course, that'll be true for any original. They weren't created with long-term preservation in mind. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I suspected this, but didn't want to just guess---according to the Adachi page, the whole background is dusted with mica, which gives a glittery effect that I image would never show up in a scan---though there's usually a certain quality to the scans that tells you it's one of those mica-dusted prints. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 15:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar enough with the guidelines; all I'll say is that several of the other ukiyo-e FPs are reprints---the other Utamaro's an Adachi. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do support the original. It meets all the criteria. I can't help thinking that there's a small galaxy of images out there that in fact meet the requirements, but so long as they come in and we keep up I don't see why we shouldn't support them. I would also support a knowledgeable restoration such as Durova did with Ase o fuku onna (Woman wiping sweat). As for the reprint, that would be brilliant except I suspect it's still in copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Copyright issue interesting on reflection. These Adachi prints date from around 1950s it seems. Are they in copyright in US law. They can't be said to be 'faithful representations' can they? Or are they classed as mere derivative works? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • They couldn't possibly be under copyright—there's no creative element to them, which is the basis under which you can obtain copyright. For those who don't know what Adachi is about: The company was founded in 1926 to reproduce ukiyo-e prints using the original techniques—this means they re-carved all the woodblocks by hand, and do all the printing by hand, too (the faded bokashi effects can't be reproduced by machine, such as in the fading blue skies). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It may well be my Brit perspective getting in the way but I am dubious. I know nothing about US copyright law, but I do know Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. because of another debate I took part in on Wikipedia. That case was about copying fonts and the Court upheld the plaintiff (on the distinctly curious grounds in my estimation) that the plaintiff displayed creativity in selecting control points for their Bezier splines (smoothing curves). Similarly surely it can be argued that Adachi displayed creativity in their selection, for example, of printing inks. The very act of printing, as I'm sure you know and will concede, is a creative one. Imagine a small museum in the US somewhere. They have a number of Japanese prints and generate useful income (or did until Wikipedia arrived) on selling poster reproductions. The museum Director has a wheeze: why not lift a few Adachi prints into a glossy little souvenir? Handy income and no royalties to pay. Somehow I can't see it, even in the US. Can you really? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the oranges of Adobe can be compared to the grapes (sorry) of these reprints. It's long been held that faithful reproductions of 2D works acquire no new copyright in the US; this includes attempts to best recreate how a work originally looked. As such, even Adam's claim to copyright for his fantastic restoration work might not be defendable in the United States, amazing as that seems. I recall I tried to nominate a restored version of A Trip to the Moon for deletion, but it was kept (discussion here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that Adachi's selling point is that they reproduce these prints as exactly as possible—right down to how the individual hairs are carved and the mica dusting—I imagine they've foregone any claims of having crossed the threshold of originality. I'm definitely not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but this document suggests the threshold is higher than it is in the States, and we know the States has a higher threshold than the UK (no "sweat of the brow" stuff). On top of that, the Library of Congress has made available a pile of Adachi prints noted "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I always make it clear that I'm not a lawyer, know nothing substantial about US copyright law and indeed copyright law in general, and I'm always prepared to defer to experts, whether real, television or for that matter wikipedian.
    The paradox about facsimiles is that they are indeed by their very nature faithful representations, but they are also restorations and, my point, involve many creative decisions. What's at stake here is not a museum trying to generate an income that they in reality have no right to, but a bona fide industry with many antecedents.
    However it's true that the Library of Congress does tag Adachi prints in the way you say - this is an example. They regard them as reprints of an original, which I think is wrong in fact. I shall email them for clarification and report back. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll lose whatever faith I have in copyright if you turn out to be right (the very idea seems to spit in the face of the spirit of American copyright laws), but keep in mind that Japanese copyright only extends for fifty years for corporate works, so any of these reproductions whose blocks were cut before 1964 are in the public domain in Japan any way one slices it (such as this, purchased in 1938). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's instinct, not really knowledgeable on American copyright law as I stress. Didn't know that about Japan copyright law, but at Commons it must be PD in both nation of origin and US. At the beginning of this year I uploaded to the English Wikipedia some Fair Use images of Charlotte Salomon's work, which had come into PD in Europe but not (generally) into the US because of URAA considerations. I was astonished to find that these Fair Use images could not be copied to the Netherlands, French of German, the countries most associated with her, wikis because (so it seems) they only allow uploads from Commons (later in the year I was able to upload some images of hers to Commons given the dispensation there about URAA). Here's a link to a facsimile of William Blake's The Book of Urizen published by the Trianon press for the William Blake Society. At this dealer it's offered for £975 and there are numeous other facsimile edition, some of them very expensive indeed and sought by coillectors, of Blake's other works. The point is that indeed there's an industry in these kinds of facsimiles. I really do doubt that the spirit of the "faithful representation" doctrine in the US can extend to these. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, of course there's a market for these things, but the fact that there's money to be made isn't a consideration in US copyright law (is it in the UK/Europe?). I would be shocked if those editions were considered eligible for copyright. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you're right about money to be made. What I meant to suggest is that whereas no one really laments the fact that museums have been stiffed of their reproduction revenues (and American museums were amongst the most vociferous in protecting them) because we instinctively recognise that they don't really own those rights on work that have come into the public domain, it's a different matter when it comes to restorations ("facsimiles"), which is a niche industry in the art world and which undoubtedly would cease to exit if their copyright weren't granted. Of course a loss, to say nothing of the loss of livelihood of its employees. The US case law in question is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. That concerned photography. It's quite a stretch to move to cutting woodblocks, selecting inks and printing impressions as merely "slavish copying". I shall email LoC for their views and if I get a reply let you know on your Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll be glad to read it. I have to say, though, that Bridgeman v. Corel only makes me more confident that Adachi prints are uncopyrightable, particularly here:

    But he ruled that the plaintiff, by its own admission, had performed "slavish copying", which did not qualify for copyright protection. "[I]ndeed", he elaborated, "the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity". He noted that "[i]t is uncontested that Bridgeman's images are substantially exact reproductions of public domain works, albeit in a different medium".

    With Adachi, there isn't even a "different medium" in play. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I'm saying the underlying work (the Adachi restoration) shouldn't be regarded as public domain in the first place. I haven't studied this judgment, but glancing at it (if I recall correctly) much was made about the evolution of the photographic process, that originally it was thought copyrightable whereas today that cannot be maintained.
    Presently, in the context of photographing 3-D objects, it's accepted that the photographer has rights. That she doesn't in 2-D strikes me as frankly perverse, but as I say it's not something I lose sleep about over museum images. Facsimile editions a different matter. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can't grasp that "perversity" at all. It sounds to me more like an underhanded way to rob the Public Domain. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What I really meant that is that it's perverse to say that photos of 3-D images are somehow more creative than photos of 2-D images. I would like to see that imaging of any PD work by any means doesn't attract fresh copyright, but that would be strictly *imaging* and not the recreation or restoration of the original work by for example cutting woodblocks, taking plaster casts of sculptures and so on. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Coaty be the nice, brilliant, lovely guy we all appreciate. Hafspajen (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Coat, do you do photography? Serious question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well I do, serious answer. But only entry level gear and basically for family snaps. I do know that photographing 2-D objects involves creative choices, hence all the discussion on this forum about various versions. The idea that 3-D photographs are somehow more creative is fairly absurd in my view. Like name your top 10 favourite images of Michelangelo's Pieta ... right, answers on a postcard. The realistic, matter of fact approach to alll this is that imaging of PD work in the modern world should not attract fresh copyright. Give it anothee decade. I'll allow others the last word here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I think it's better to promote this one, and if the colours prove wrong, we can fix it when we have the proof, not before. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a question (I don't hang around here much and don't know the ropes): by "wrong" colours, do you mean not the original colours, or not the colours the print has now after two centuries of fading? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be surprised if something faded lilac, but it could be something like fingers spreading the mica dust around over time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yann (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to throw a monkeywrench into the nomination, but if we are insisting on the "original" printing, this isn't it—according to Hideo Matsui, who runs the Koishikawa Ukiyo-e Art Museum, there are only two known copies from the original printing, and they both have the names of the thre beuaties to the left of the title in the top right corner. One of the copies is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston—you can see it here. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks like this discussion resulted in a new article... Face-smile.svg. Hafspajen (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The later print still has enough EV in that article. Thanks Curly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Kitagawa Utamaro - Toji san bijin (Three Beauties of the Present Day)From Bijin-ga (Pictures of Beautiful Women), published by Tsutaya Juzaburo - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Suspended nominations[edit]

This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.