Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FPC)
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).
Shortcuts:

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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.
Colortest.png
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
Edouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère.jpg Edouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère
Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer - restoration.jpg Einstein by F. Schmutzer
Johannes (Jan) Vermeer - Christ in the House of Martha and Mary - Google Art Project.jpg Vermeer: Christ in the House of Martha and Mary


Current nominations[edit]

Neural map of a giant scallop[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 18:09:12 (UTC)

Original – Diagram of the commissures, connectives, ganglia, and principal nerves of an adult giant scallop, Placopecten magellanicus. Anterior view, slightly turned, scallop opened.
Reason
SVG diagram is freely licensed, is of high technical quality, has been purged of rasters, and represents the highest quality image of its subject that has likely every been created.
Articles in which this image appears
Scallop
FP category for this image
wp:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator
KDS444

Artist's commentary: This image is based closely on a drawing created in 1906 by a biologist named Gilman Drew (source provided on image page on Commons) of a frontal view of the nerves of a giant scallop (that is, as if the scallop were shown edge-on with the hinge at the top and "facing" the viewer with its two valves slightly opened— scallops do have a front and a back, but these are not at all intuitive). Drew's version was a complicated unshaded line drawing and very difficult to interpret. What I have done here is I have recreated Drew's image but made some minor corrections in perspective and have added false color so that the nerves running toward the viewer have a different color arrangement and are generally lighter than those running away from the viewer. These things (hopefully) make the image significantly easier to interpret. Drew still left out several important nerves-- I was tempted to try to interpolate these, but decided this might be overstepping my bounds and so did not. The end result, then is very true to Drew's original work and even more true to the actual animal without getting into the gray area of original research. If the final test is, "Does this image look like it could have come from the pages of the magazine Science, I finally feel I can say, "Yes, it does."

Also note that although this particular diagram happens to be of a giant scallop, the arrangement of nerves within scallops is apparently highly regular-- this image, then, can really stand as a more-or-less definitive diagram of the neural system of scallops generally, which is not often the case when it comes to biological diagrams.

Nominated through my Wikipedia account of an image uploaded through my Commons account. (KDS4444=KDS444)



Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 2[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2014 at 01:23:14 (UTC)

Original – The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF) is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 24, 2003, through to January 16, 2004. On June 3, 2014, NASA released the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field image composed of, for the first time, the full range of ultraviolet to near-infrared light.
Reason
High quality, absolutely astounding in regards to the amount of detail. Complements the FP File:Hubble ultra deep field high rez edit1.jpg very well.
Articles in which this image appears
Hubble Ultra-Deep Field +4
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator
NASA, ESA, H. Teplitz and M. Rafelski (IPAC/Caltech), A. Koekemoer (STScI), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and Z. Levay (STScI)
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment From what I can tell, File:Hubble ultra deep field high rez edit1.jpg covers a lot more area. Why doesn't this one? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • NASA's press release doesn't say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm mainly just worried there might be a bigger, fuller one we could grab. Chances of this? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Neither source here has one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Support, I suppose. D&R can always be done later, right? Though I don't like it so much as the old one - I think one of the new signals has lower resolution and is removing a bit of the sharpness. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- File:Hubble ultra deep field high rez edit1.jpg was delisted, right? On the other hand apparently it was featured as pic of the day 24 September 2014. Deep. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it hasn't been delisted, nor has it run yet (it is scheduled to run in 2 months). This is a new release from NASA which complements the original, and would make for a more interesting blurb if we put them side by side. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely breathtaking. Capturing the full range of spectrum and the detail give this lasting value. Fylbecatulous talk 13:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




Red Skelton[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2014 at 21:30:56 (UTC)

OriginalRed Skelton in 1960
Reason
High-res picture of a notable entertainer. Copyright seems to check out, though if there's any problems, please tell me.
Articles in which this image appears
Red Skelton
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Unknown photographer, restoration by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Great expression — a human Daffy Duck. Sca (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Fantastic image, glad to see the LOC had it. Question though: do you think this could use a bit more contrast? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've actually boosted it a bit already. I don't want to go too far, because a little tweaking is one thing, but it currently looks reasonable for the era. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Support - Fair enough, then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrast issues. If this can be corrected with a different version I could support. Loved Red Skelton as a kid and still have fond memories of lying in front of the council TV in my PJs eating TV dinners. Yeah...it was good to be a kid back then.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not at all convinced this should have more contrast - pictures from this period were often relatively low contrast, as far as I'm aware. Now, I could be wrong, and, if you have evidence I am, I'm happy to change it, but I'm worried it's all too easy to make everything fit modern sensibilities, particualrly when the image looks extremely good when not being seen as a tiny thumbnail against a pure white background. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




Stephanie Wilson[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2014 at 04:12:29 (UTC)

OriginalStephanie Wilson is an American engineer and a NASA astronaut who first flew into space on board the Space Shuttle mission STS-121. This portrait is from 1997.
Reason
High quality image of a notable individual. I think it's a bit better composed then a lot of the official portraits from NASA
Articles in which this image appears
Stephanie Wilson, List of black astronauts, List of female astronauts
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator
NASA; light restoration by Chris Woodrich




Henry Wallis- The Death of Chatterton[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2014 at 06:49:39 (UTC)

OriginalThe Death of Chatterton by Henry Wallis, Tate version
Reason
One of the most seminal paintings of all time by a great unacknowledged master. It shows the tragic results loosed upon us when true genius is suppressed by rude and disruptive elements. A lesson for us all.
Articles in which this image appears
The Death of Chatterton, Henry Wallis, Thomas Chatterton
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Henry Wallis




Pair of Mandarin ducks[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2014 at 02:21:56 (UTC)

Original – A pair of Mandarin ducks at Martin Mere, Lancashire, UK; males are larger than females and have considerably brighter plumage
Reason
FP on commons, lead image in the bird article, can't think of a better way to illustrate sexual dimorphism
Articles in which this image appears
Mandarin duck, sexual dimorphism
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Francis C. Franklin
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment These don't really look like ducks to me, come on. Also when I actually zoom in close it turns out that the whole thing is made up of tiny little squares giving it a speckled effect which I find disturbing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "They don't really look like ducks"? Sigh... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Oh well, OK. Maybe they quack like ducks, fair enough. Excellent image by the way, even if it is made up of those funny little squares. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: per nom. My feathers will never be ruffled. Fylbecatulous talk 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ///EuroCarGT 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Striking example of sex (or must I say gender?) differentiation. The female may be modestly coiffured, but she looks like a flirt to me. Sca (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Outstanding photo with high EV. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- beautiful. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




Sunita Williams[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 17:23:03 (UTC)

Original – Former NASA astronaut Sunita Williams, She holds the records for longest single space flight by a woman (195 days), total spacewalks by a woman (seven), and most spacewalk time for a woman (50 hours, 40 minutes).
Reason
good quality, high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Sunita Williams, List of female astronauts, List of spacewalkers and more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator
NASA
  • Support as nominatorBkouhi (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Wonderful portrait! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Glad to see NASA avoided a lot of the dust that usually plagues their uploads. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I love the enthusiasm in her expression. Not that it's hard to imagine why. Great picture of a great woman. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




Wells Cathedral Interior Set[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 15:44:16 (UTC)

Reason
These images all contribute to a varied and comprehensive illustration of the interior of the cathedral. All are high quality individually, and although they may not all have the necessary 'wow factor' on their own, I think they do as a set.
Articles in which this image appears
Wells Cathedral
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support All. -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Don't sell yourself short Diliff. Individually, these all have an immense "wow" factor!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very beautiful. Love the organ. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per Mark Miller...-Godot13 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good stuff. ///EuroCarGT 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- These photos range from good to excellent, and are deserving of featured status as a set. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)




File:Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 15:21:04 (UTC)

Original – The ruins of Fountains Abbey, a former Cistercian monastary in Yorkshire, England.
Reason
It's an interesting and aesthetic view of the ruins of Fountains Abbey.
Articles in which this image appears
Fountains Abbey, Cistercian architecture, Cistercians, Abbeys Amble, Henry Murdac, History of Yorkshire, Grade I listed buildings in Harrogate (borough) and 6 more lists.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image looks very flat. This one does not scream Feature to me. It actually looks very much like a typical tourist photo.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Excepting the bang-on exposure, straight verticals, and balanced composition, you'd be right. 70.72.190.205 (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me reword that a bit. As usual, Diliff's photography is superb, but the exposure does seem to leave the image flat and without dimension. The focus is sharp and one can see every detail and every separate brick, but its the lighting in this scene that seems to cause the eye to try to grasp hold of something for direction. The cloudy conditions seem to have detracted from the over all look and feel of this one.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I wouldn't go so far as to call this a tourist photo, but I agree that it seems a bit... drab. That being said, this is a fantastic image: tack sharp, well exposed, and pretty well composed (though I feel another 250px on either side would have balanced the image a bit better). Cutting a bit from the top and bottom may work as well. If we get a better image, we can delist it. For now, this is pretty much perfect for its purpose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The composition is a bit boring, the object looks strangely far away. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per other opposers and on the nitpicking side, haloings going on around the trees + double leaves, probably as a result of exposures blending (?). - Blieusong (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




John William Waterhouse - The Lady of Shalott[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 10:05:49 (UTC)

Not for nomination - AutoContrast edit in LCH space
Reason
John William Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott (1888) was one of Sir Henry Tate's founding gifts to the Tate Gallery and has always been one of Britain's favourite paintings.
Articles in which this image appears
The Lady of Shalott
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
John William Waterhouse
  • It's a Google Art Project work. At 100% it looks fine. Its the image at 100% we should be judging not its thumbnail. If you take the virtual tour in the Google Cultural Institution you can see the painting as hung is naturally a rather sombre one. The thumbnail is actually missing some 20% of the lighter tones in RGB colour space. If you try to adjust it with the naive techniques used in the Romano painting nominated here you get the same sort of hideous result you see there. I've uploaded an Autocontrast edit in LCH space which editors coming after me can use as a thumbnail if they like. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Without being too judgmental, I would rather you stopped accusing people of judging "the thumbnail". I am familiar with this painting. It is way darker than the original and is just not Feature quality to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm saying it looks just fine at 100%. The thumbnail is indeed too dark by some 20%. We know that's a problem with some Google Art Project images. I suggested a workround as far as the thumbnail is concerned. I love this painting too. It's one of the most popular at the Tate. I'm glad you're familiar with it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- compared with Tate's own photo here, it's darker, has a different colour balance and is slightly cropped, and the stretcher line's not as visible at top. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Xanthi. We've already corresponded elsewhere when you wondered whether I was making up my criticism of another image here and it's plain that you're expert in imaging, which makes me wonder why you are commenting here like this. The Tate Gallery image is a scaled down version of its license managed image available for fees typical ranging from £50 to £250 or more depending on how many copies it is proposed to publish. It's a 27.6 Mb file comapred with Google's 6.6 Mb and the first thing that can be said about it is that Wikipedia isn't going to to get to lay its hands on it unless an editor makes a legacy donation of it, unlikely I think. I think it's quite possible it was taken years ago, but the main point is that neither of the two images can be held to be inauthentic in the way I have critised other images appearing in this forum. It's within normal variation for art images.There is nothing in WP:FP?#1 criteria concerning technical standards that precludes it, nor in WP:FP?#8 regarding digital manipulation, the issue in the image we discussed elsewhere. There's no reasonable prospect of a better image appearin soon, and if I may so the feature here isn't its eye-candy wowness, but its utility as a source for students anxious to examine more closely the artist's technique.
I have no agenda in promoting this image (maybe there's be a message there, maybe not Face-smile.svg). I gather at least one aficionado of this forum are pre-Rapaelite fans, so I present one ... itt van! I shall check its progress with interst when I return (off for a while). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
To show Waterhouse's technique (for example his use of heavy textured paint on highlights over a flatter surface) a photo at an angle with raking light is useful. A clearer example is "Bird's Nest" Hunt where his distinctive contribution to watercolour technique isn't shown by flat-on photos. According to Margulis (who devotes a chapter to the subject) LCH or equivalent colour space is the most useful for removing casts or increasing the range of colour in an image- so it may be possible to bring the image closer to the Tate rendition. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, well I wouldn't claim to match Dan Margulis's expertise, even read his books, and I don't own Adobe Photoshop or intend ever to. I think it's quite possible there are edits out there which are still superior, but I would say LCH space should be the starting point. The only thing I would say is that the Tate image may not be the reference of choice here. I mean I just don't know, I haven't looked at the painting in more than 20 years. I do recall it's pretty sombre. When I get back I might try to find a forum which discusses these Google images. They're not all wonderful by any means and I don't think articles should blindly link to them. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - another crappy Google Art rendition. They really should hire someone to do some post-processing. While there may be nothing unauthentic about the rendition, technically a 100% black rectangle is also authentic (image under no light). It would be hugely disappointing to feature such a dark, drab version of the painting. Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't find a source for this image and I don't know enough about their images. It might well be "in-house". It's certainly not the Tate image. Which is more faithful in tone I can't say. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I'll see if I can get something up. There's a reason why the article on this painting doesn't use the Google scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The The Lady of Shalott (painting) image comes from the-athenaeum.org, a blog whose images are uploaded by its members without sourcing. In Wikipedia terms it can't really be regarded as a "reliable source". I shall probably be away when you upload your something, but if it's a derivative work and I see it I shall oppose it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not adding it here, because I'm not pleased with it. But my oppose on the darkness issue still stands. There are some very interesting color dynamics going on here, but they're lost in the darkness of the scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • When I get back I'll get in touch with the Tate and with Google about this image. From what I can remember the Google image is more likely to be the more accurate tonally. The painting is really very sombre, as you might expect from its subject (she was after all sailing to her death). Of course it's gorgeously rich in those autumnal hues. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's a sombre painting, but that doesn't preclude dynamic colours. The reds and golds of the tapestry vs the whites of her gown, in particular, are a little lacking in the Google scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Google Art Project sheds more light on the Tate. The impression I get is that Google provides its own images of artworks when they do a Virtual Tour of a museum. I can quite readily believe these are often superior to the images a gallery provides. Equally they can't all be successful. It's interesting that when I search on the terms "Google Art Project image too dark" I only find these posts here i.e. to say it seems not to have been an issue debated elsewhere. Whatever the source used, it should be documented and verifiable. I have been editing some Mauritshuis files on Commons recently. It's quite common to see high resolution digital images uploaded that can only have come from their rights managed collection. They are typically sourced as "unknown" or given spurious origins such as geheugenvannederland.nl (Memories of the Netherlands), a Dutch national archive which does provide moderate high resolution Zoomify images of some artworks but certainly not these high resolution images. Now of course one can turn a blind eye to the origin of these images and assume good faith. But the trouble is that they have invariably been tinkered with by the uploaders, lightened or warmed, and even cropped, to their personal satisfaction, and that's when it becomes problematic. But I'm afraid I do think this isn't the place to carry on this debate. I really do wonder that the community can be satisfied with showcasing an image whose source simply can't be verified. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Coat of Many Colours: The images from Google Art Project are almost always too dark. I imagine they are trying to avoid specular highlights on the paint texture/cracks at all costs (which is only an issue for extremely high resolution images). Unfortunately, the cost is a dark, drab image that rarely does justice to the actual painting. It's like touring a museum with the lights off. Kaldari (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)




William Crooks[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 02:54:14 (UTC)

Original – The William Crooks, the first locomotive to operate in Minnesota.
Reason
A rather good illustration of a historic locomotive, from the period when it was in use. Identified by an expert on the subject, We hope, and the identification definitely does seem to check out.
Articles in which this image appears
William Crooks (Could probably go into a few others, like Swinburne, Smith and Company)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator
National Photo Company, restoration by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yes please! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Of historical interest (particularly if one grew up in Minnesota).
This early 20th C. photo of the 1861 locomotive seems slightly canted to the right — straighten? Sca (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Any other rotation requires cropping. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly why I don't like the straightened version. The gentleman in the far left is cut in half in that version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hence the crop/rotation I chose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think there WAS a point to that when I wrote it. Don't know where it is now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support My personal preference is to see photos of locomotives and trains when they were in service as I think it adds more to the understanding of why this locomotive or train is/was important. There are any number of color photos of the Crooks on exhibit at Union Depot and the Lake Superior Railroad Museum, but a photo like this has captured an instant in history. We hope (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the man blocking part of the front of the train and the strong light at the top of the photo. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




Selwyn College Chapel, University of Cambridge[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 00:33:55 (UTC)

Reason
This is a set nomination of two images, showing the view from both ends of the chapel. I think either image would be of sufficient quality individually but as a set, they add slightly more EV. It is the interior of the chapel of this nomination.
Articles in which this image appears
Selwyn College, Cambridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 00:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support set. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I find the second image more brighter esp. the roof, the first one looks dark. ///EuroCarGT 03:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's somewhat expected, given they're views from different directions. I think that's due to the way the light is entering the chapel. You can see that the direct sunlight is entering through the glass at the rear of the chapel in the second image. There seems to be some complex reflections and interactions though, that make different areas darker and lighter. All I can say is that they were processed the same way with the same exposures. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support set -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support set, good choice. Brandmeistertalk 11:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support set.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I scrutinized, and all I got is that the view of organ should have its left side's vertical fixed (and this time I'm pretty sure it's not the building ;) ). Very, very nice... - Blieusong (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




File:Selwyn College Old Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 21:55:26 (UTC)

Original – The Old Court of Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, England. Middle-left is the chapel, right is the college hall.
Reason
It's an aesthetic view of the college courtyard and has good detail, showing the brickwork, the arrangement of buildings etc.
Articles in which this image appears
Selwyn College, Cambridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 21:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - An exterior? You haven't nominated one of these in ages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Exteriors are easier to shoot (but with their own challenges like the time of day being vitally important, geographic/logistical constraints not allowing the right angle, too many people getting in the way, etc) so I haven't concentrated so much on them with the cathedrals. I've been largely trying to get quality images of subjects that other people have been unable to get, and most people struggle more with interior photography due to lack of the proper equipment and patience. But I took quite a few exterior images in Cambridge. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I hear ya on the challenges... although I'm glad to see more exteriors, I'm definitely not tiring of your interiors! Keep 'em coming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — A lovely ensemble of Victorian structures. Agree it's good to see an exterior. Nice light & shadow. Sca (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




Johannes Vermeer - Christ in the House of Martha and Mary[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 21:54:37 (UTC)

OriginalJohannes Vermeer - Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, 1665
Reason
Vermeer's earliest work ( Saint Praxedis is possibly earlier but its autograph is disputed, although that didn't stop it selling for £6 million at a Christie's sale this month). Martha, with her eyes downcast, evokes several of Vermeer's later canvases such as The Milkmaid .
Articles in which this image appears
Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Vermeer) and four others.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Johannes Vermeer




Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 21:15:59 (UTC)

OriginalAlbert Einstein 1921 by Ferdinand Schmutzer
Alt 1 - Restored version by Adam Cuerden
Reason
One of the few early photographs of Einstein available. Rediscovered in 2001 by the estate of Ferdinand Schmutzer. The image is being renominated following the resolution of a copyright problem which got in the way of the last nomination. I have chosen a sepia print because Schmutzer's 1921 etching (which incidentally 'publishes' the image under US case law thus making it PD regardless of other copyright considerations) is a sepia aquatint.
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
Creator
Ferdinand Schmutzer
  • Yes, that's right. It's the nomination I mentioned above that got involved with a nomination for deletion on copyright concerns. That proved to be a somewhat complicated affair that took some time to resolve. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying Coat! ///EuroCarGT 04:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support restoration. Copyright looks to have been cleaned up, and the image is very good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)




Nighthawks[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 18:45:57 (UTC)

OriginalNighthawks is a 1942 oil on canvas painting by Edward Hopper that portrays people in a downtown diner late at night. Since then the painting has been the subject to many parodies and homages, including in The Simpsons episode "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment".
Reason
High quality scan of a painting with high EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Nighthawks (most EV), Night in paintings (Western art), Visual art of the United States, +5 others
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Edward Hopper
  • It's not a "scan" is it? It's a digital image and the file description just gives the source as "email". I don't think that's very satisfactory. It does look like the museum image (realistically it's certainly the museum image because it's virtually impossible to copy colour values with such fidelity), though not immediately apparent its rights managed high resolution version, which is still larger. Nevertheless it's most likely a reduced version of it. No copyright issues in the US, but indeed contractual issues which uploaders of these images ought to be aware of, especially as it would be routine to add a digital signature to the image identifying the purchaser. I mean I have dozens and dozens of such images from the British Museum, but I wouldn't dream of uploading them to Wikipedia, though I do occasionally their publicly available images. Not sure if Wikipedia has any liability in such cases. I think it probably must have if it's knowingly hosting these images. That would seem plausible to me. As of course would presumably the admins overseeing the forum here. I do think there should be a policy about sources here. They should be transparent. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)




Édouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 16:39:34 (UTC)

Original – Édouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère
Reason
Édouard Manet's last major work, dating from 1881-82. Griselda Pollock calls it an image of modernity, concerning itself with "unstable reflections and ambivalent identities in a world of commodities and public spectacles". The device of the mirror stretched behind the barmaid borrows from Mary Cassatt's 1879 Woman with a Pearl Necklace in a Loge, a portrait of her terminally ill sister Lydia, while the detail of the fashionably dressed lady holding opera glasses to her eyes is a direct quotation from her 1878 painting At the Opera. One of the commodities on display here was, of course, the barmaid herself. Naturally Cassatt could not frequent such places, but Manet exulted in them. He was to die of syphilis in 1883, some six month after the death of Cassatt's sister Lydia. Berthe Morisot, subject of a celebrated portrait by Manet, was with him at the end, writing to her sister "These last days were very painful; poor Édouard suffered atrociously. His agony was horrible. In a word, it was death in one of its most appalling forms ...".
Articles in which this image appears
A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, Courtauld Gallery
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Édouard Manet
  • Support as nominatorCoat of Many Colours (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — I've always liked this one. However, as with certain other familiar paintings, I wonder if it's lost some appeal due to frequent reproduction in mass media. Sca (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes well, 'iconic' is a word you see frequently in the descriptions. I don't see it loses its EV merely because it's familiar. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)




File:St John's College Chapel, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 01:07:57 (UTC)

Original – The chapel of St John's College, Cambridge, England.
Reason
The beauty of the interior speaks for itself, but I think the the ambiance and details are captured nicely.
Articles in which this image appears
St John's College, Cambridge and Choir of St John's College, Cambridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 01:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely breathtaking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Amazing picture. On the Commons page I've noted what I think are a couple of minor stitching errors. Big support if they can be removed. --99of9 (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support....That isn't a stitch issue. After close inspection, it seems to be wires or cables that are supporting a barely visible...item suspended from those wires or cables. 99of9 please let me know if I am completely wrong here.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, the ones he highlighted are definitely parallax. Barely noticeable, but fixable one would hope — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Probably fixable. Yes, you're right, that's parallax. I wasn't able to shoot this with a panoramic head unfortunately, as I was shooting this through a wrought iron gate. I also couldn't quite shoot it from the middle of the chapel because the two gates close in the middle which forces you to shoot slightly from one side or the other. Barely noticeable indeed, I was aware that there could be slight parallax issues in this image and I looked long and hard before uploading it! I'll see what I can do about fixing it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, should be largely fixed now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Big Support as promised. --99of9 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
If you have some time in the near future is it possible for you to point out the issue you saw involving the parallax. I stared at this image so long I am truly shocked I didn't see what the issue was...but I am truly glad it was worked out because the image is just beautiful!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If the stitching errors in my interior below were so small, I wouldn't have opposed. Do you see the line of orange tiles heading north-east (pretend this is a map?) Four tiles from the bottom there is a very small disconnect. It's more obvious with the black tile just north of the one I pointed to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Mark, does this image with red circles highlighting the stitching problems help? As Crisco said, they're quite minor so I'm not surprised you didn't spot them. Neither did I until 99of9 pointed them out. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes that did help. My god....you guys have good eyes! I am getting too old for this. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a matter of knowing what to look for (the kind of glasses I have to wear [-14.25 in each eye] have to be special ordered from Japan; definitely not good eyes Face-smile.svg) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)




File:Magdalene College Dining Hall, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 00:53:21 (UTC)

Original – The dining hall of Magdalene College in Cambridge, England. The hall's tables have been set for a formal lunch.
Alt - Lens flares edited out.
Reason
It's an interesting view of the dining hall of Magdalene College, one of the constituent colleges of the University of Cambridge in England. The photo was taken from the very corner of the room, allowing me to get a wide angle view that was able to capture the entire table in the foreground (if you look closely, you can see that you're looking almost directly down on the nearest chair). Detail is good enough that you can practically read what was for lunch on the menu. :-)
Articles in which this image appears
Magdalene College, Cambridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What are the circles on the nearest painting and directly below it on the wall (between the candle tips)? They look like lens flare to me. I couldn't see them on a couple of other views of the same hall I found on the web, but those photos were quite small, so I'm not completely sure. --99of9 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • On the painting looks like lens flare to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right, its lens flare. I could probably clone the one on the wall out but the one on the painting would be very difficult. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • (Personally I think the one on the painting looks rather nice. Almost deliberate). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for confirming. I'm afraid I must Oppose original, because this is a reasonably noticeable defect. --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Support alt Thanks for helping out Adam Cuerden.--99of9 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Hey, it's what I do on FP. Kind of weird not having to worry about film grain, though. ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support either, Alt preferred -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support Alt great work as usual. Nikhil (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I am becoming a Diliff fan!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt uploaded, support alt Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt Well done; looks fantastic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




Great Mosque of Central Java (Interior)[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 00:00:30 (UTC)

Original – Interior of the Great Mosque of Central Java
Reason
A bit noisy and distorted at the top, but very high resolution, which I think is ample to make up for the minor flaws. Illustrates the subject in a way that a mere description wouldn't, showing its grandeur and elegant simplicity. Also, why should Chris get to nominate all the images of things in Indonesia, eh?
Articles in which this image appears
Great Mosque of Central Java
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
Chris Woodrich (a.k.a Crisco 1492)
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Yes, beautiful. I love the floor and the cool colours. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Agree with nom - bit noisy and distorted, but high resolution mitigates much of that. Also (at least in my experience) permission to photograph mosque interiors is not always given...--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow Adam, I didn't realize you nominated this. I seem to recall some minor parallax in this image... (Godot, noise can be fixed; brb) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Now that you mention it, there is a bit on the floor at the bottom, just left of the middle, but it looks fixable.
  • Oppose for now. I just noticed that there are considerable focus errors (see, for instance, the edge of the inner chandelier ring). I've denoised and uploaded, but it's just too noticeable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll try and restitch; maybe this can be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No, didn't get any better... once I get the proper equipment, I'll reshoot and nominate. :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose also. The quality is just a bit lacking, although I look forward to seeing the reshoot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)




Bixby letter[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 09:59:49 (UTC)

Original – This is a widely published lithographic facsimile of the Bixby letter, sent to a Mrs. Brixby who reported losing five children in the American Civil War. The original letter is lost.
Reason
High quality scan of a facsimile of a notable (now-lost) letter signed by Abraham Lincoln. Besides, we can't let Adam have the whole Civil War category to himself now, can we?
Articles in which this image appears
Bixby letter
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War
Creator
Signed Abraham Lincoln, but some think John Hay penned the letter
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from offer your support to a letter so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the community who may yet have a chance to learn of the this power literary piece. I pray that our Heavenly Father may leave you only the cherished memory of the nomination, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have successfully beaten Adam to the punch. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Not overwhelmed by the EV of this I have to say. Would be happy to support a genuine autograph of Lincoln, and autographs in general. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Who said this had EV only as a sample of Lincoln's handwriting? That's a dime a dozen, almost. This has EV as a facsimile of the original Bixby letter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Featured? My understanding is that it's a facsimile of a forgery, likely by John Hay, who provided one of the Gettysburg address it seems. I did look at the category. I just can't see taking its place there. Not opposing, just explaining why I'm not supporting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
        • CN on "forgery", please. Read Hay's article. Current scholarship is that either Lincoln wrote the letter himself, as generally held, or that Hay wrote the letter (i.e. wrote the original letter) in Lincoln's name as part of his duties as Lincoln's secretary. No matter who penned it, the Bixby letter is notable (i.e. has an article on it) and this is an almost exact reproduction of it. The only image that would have more EV in the Bixby letter article is a scan of the original, which no longer exists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
          • CN? Whether by Lincoln or Hay, the origin of the facsimile is unknown and plausibly it's a forgery. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Also, for the category: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History is home to the scan of the embossed copy of the Declaration of Independence and the check used for the Alaska Purchase, suggesting documents go in the history category. Since we have one exclusively for the American Civil War, I used that category for this document (which is from the Civil War, after all). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Not convinced. It's a condolence letter. A high resolution scan of a original in Lincoln's handwriting (you say his autographs are two a penny) would have EV. A forged (by common consent) facsimile of a particular example doesn't IMHO. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per TomStar81. Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason why I can't have the category to myself. Support. Whether real or forgery, this specific lithographic reproduction is discussed in the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Remember the point of FPs is to add value to articles. This can be a specific section of an article, such as the long section on whether this print was a forgery or not. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To highlight images that add value to articles. The van Meegeren forgeries are notable and an image of one of them no doubt worthy of a place in the Vermeer article. But if such an image was made a Featured Picture candidate I would certainly question its EV. Same here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I... really don't see how your logic works there - it's notable, but when it gets here, it's not? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • First of all this is going to be my last remark here. It's just a comment saying that, personally for me, I can't see its EV. That's what we are after here, EV not notability. That's the criteria, notability after all being a given, or should be, if an item is to appear in the encyclopaedia at all. For me a reproduction of genuine letter of condolence written by Abraham Lincoln would have EV, but this facsimile of a forgery doesn't pique my interest at all. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Just 'cos I'm off on my hols and I don't want to feel weighed down by guilt as I sun myself on the beach. I would like to see more autographs Featured. Of course the major auction house have regular sales of these, accompanied by high resolution images in their catalogues. I'll make a point in future of uploading any that catch my eye, much as I did with the British Guiana 1c. Magenta. Looking round for a parting nomination yesterday, I was surprised to see that there are no Hubble Deep Field images, unless they're buried somewhere implausible in the categories. This recent one didn't make it through Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_2014 only last month. Odd that. I mean I grant that the whole world and their mums (pet dogs and cats, snakes, ducks whatever) don't necessarily rush to this forum, but there are enough nominating here to help images like these through. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Authorship questions aside, an historic letter, in the only state (facsimile) known.-Godot13 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I'm confused, this is a (admittedly good) scan of a mere copy of the letter; that doesn't deserve to be featured. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • And why not? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry for my vague language- "that" referred to the fact that it is a scan of a copy. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)




Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel)[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 17:13:14 (UTC)

Original – Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel)
Reason
Iconic. A 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file.
Articles in which this image appears
The Scream, List of paintings by Edvard Munch, List of most expensive paintings
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Edvard Munch
  • Support as nominator – Iconic great granddaddy of all drama royals. I just know it will receive generous support here. This is the version that sold for $119,922,500 a couple of years back. Two failed nominations for the Oslo version. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, I know that look! Thats the "Da $#@% you mean the USA is 17 trillion dollars in debt!?" look. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thought about it, but nah ... bought myself a new yacht instead — But it's so stunningly beautiful!
  • Comment — Again? Sca (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a different version from the Oslo versions nominated before 1 first, 2 second. Second time round you opposed on the ground it had been published so often it's become almost a cliché, but not many clichés sell for $119,922,500. On both occasions the stumbling block was the lack of resolution, and indeed that won't be fixed until the holding museums issue high resolution images. But this was sold at auction and the on-line catalogue made available a 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file. That's plenty of resolution enough. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Money conquers all. Sca (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ya know, that stamp might have a chance at passing FPC too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support, but I've got my eye on a little blonde bombshell I fancy next. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wish this was better used in the article. Discussed in text, but relegated to a gallery. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As an alt., how about a rectangular background detail showing just the two men on the bridge (or pier) and the sailboat in the water? Sca (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Would be happy to support. I always thought this was a bridge too, but in fact the location appears to be a road above Copenhagen harbour according to this interesting blog I linked in to to the article this morning. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: First this does not appear to have a free license or a clear title, at least for Wikimedia Commons. Secondly, compared to the two earlier submissions; this image is quite grainy, especially along the roadway or bridge (whichever). I find that an unpleasant and worrisome feature for a pastel. It now appears speckled. The image is not restful in any regard, so smooth colours at least make it tolerable to look at. I actually prefer choice one, which has been earlier reviewed and not promoted. Fylbecatulous talk 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean PD and The Scream is certainly PD in the US. It's true it can't go onto Commons until the beginning of next year when Munch comes into PD in Europe, but I'm not aware that's one of the criteria. First nom raised Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, one of the lamer copyright dramas in recent years, but it's unassailable that The Scream was 'published' within the terms of the Berne convention (i.e. made available for copying) before 1923.For example it was made available as a limited edition of prints in 1895. As for the resolution, it's at the mark and pastels at the mark 'are' 'speckled', that's the nature of their mark. Have a look at this Degas pastel Commons:File:Edgar Degas - Young Woman in Blue - Google Art Project.jpg. Why should you be worried about that? I should think it extremely unlikely that a Sotheby's catalogue for a work expected to sell in the high tens of millions of dollars carried a substandard image. Pretty sure at any rate we are not going to get better any time soon. Nomination 1 was for an oil painting and it failed on resolution concerns. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can vouch that this is acceptable for hosting locally on the English Wikipedia as well. Don't get what is meant by "speckles"/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the demanding (and discerning) world of the visual arts, Fylbe. I still can't follow your objection to the image here. There's no noise in that image. That 'speckling' is merely the mark pastel chalks make on paper especially prepared to 'take' the chalk. Really I think you should strike your oppose here unless you can make a more substantial case. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Fylbecatulous: I think it's disappointing that you haven't responded to a request to clarify your issues. I take it that means you don't have any further issues, and since the objections you raised have been adequately explained by myself and by an administrator at the forum, I think in the circumstances it would be courteous to strike your oppose. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Really, I do not intend to strike my oppose. I believe it would be courteous to now leave me alone. I am an editor worthy to cast a vote here and it has been thusly done. It's disappointing that this process is becoming an unpleasant experience. I speak for myself, of course. Others may speak on their own behalf. Fylbecatulous talk 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Coat of Many Colours: As a relative newcomer to Featured picture nominations, I have read the exchanges above with interest. It is clear that you are all quite knowledgeable, but if the discussion takes on the appearance of a group of insiders making the decisions, newcomers will be deterred from voicing their opinions. Coat of Many Colours, I would be interested to know why you feel it is important that User:Fylbecatulous strike his opposing vote. It seems to me that if the image is worthy, it will receive additional supporting votes which will outweigh one opposing vote, and I think time ought to be allowed for others to see the image and express their opinions (especially considering that this is the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere and many people are on vacation). Asking an editor to strike his vote is kind of like saying, "Because you got one or two things factually wrong, your vote is now invalid", and also kind of like, "You should have checked your facts before expressing an opinion here". That sends the message to potential participants that their vote will not be counted if they don't get their information right, which could be a deterrent to participation. If editors sense a kind, tolerant, and generous attitude, this could be a pleasant experience for all and an opportunity for editors to learn something new. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Corinne. Indeed I've noticed you around and I left you a message here saying how much I liked your User page. In this case we have a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate. It would likewise be kind,tolerant and generous of him simply to admit his mistakes, embarrassing and possibly unpleasant though that might be, and move on. That's how I see it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hafs' trusty old DC
  • @Fylbecatulous: I'm sorry to hear that your experience here has been unpleasant. If you could be more specific I should be happy to help in any way I can. You will forgive me, but you are a new contributor here are you not? It's difficult to judge from your contribution record because you are such a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, but that does seem to be so - that you made your first contribution here supporting Hafspajen's recent School of Raphael nomination, which I opposed on the grounds that it suffers a pronounced yellow colour cast on account of its processing (see thumbnails)? As an experienced Wikipedian you should know the etiquette about newbies joining forums. Really I must ask you to reconsider. When I make a mistake in this forum, I courteously acknowledge that I have so and make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right. With respect I courteously suggest that you ought to as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes excellent nomination which I warmly supported as well, but that's still only less than a fortnight ago. I think it would be generous, tolerant and kind of you to admit your mistake here and strike your oppose. I can't see what's unpleasant about that. Only a little prick to one'e sense of self-esteem surely? And then you can be confident of my good will. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • C.o.m.c. - you will forgive me, but you are a new contributor here also, are you not? It was 23 June 2014 you made your first edit here. Just about a month ago. Drmies, please tell this editor not to intimidate other editors just because they vote for a nomination s/he is vigourosly opposing for reasons og her/ his own. Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I have to remind you that in the fact Crisco 1492 also votes support on the nomination you obviously trying to destroy. Just because you, C.o.m.c. doesn't think that nomination is OK; that doesn't mean that you have to put down this much energy on it - opposing it EVEN here, posting those painting even here. A simple oppose would have been quite enough, and in that case the whole thing wouldn't blow up like this. I think you go too far now. Crisco 1492, since when are we telling to editors what to do and how to vote on this project? Hafspajen (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Coat of Many Colours:. I have read the guidelines for this project page. I cannot find where it states that a nominator may hassle a commentor into striking what might be considered a misguided vote. However I do see: Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. Since you allege that I am a newcomer and to that I agree, Please apologise for your incivility, biting of a newcomer and commenting about me: ie In this case we have a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate. It would likewise be kind,tolerant and generous of him simply to admit his mistakes, embarrassing and possibly unpleasant though that might be, and move on. You surely misread me as to my motives. After my requested apology is given, I shall be confident of your good will. Fylbecatulous talk 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm asking you to concede what is clearly the case, that your objection had no merit i.e. to say there is no copyright issue and there is no problem with the image. In such a case it would be a courtesy to strike the oppose, especially when requested. I would not hesitate to do that. However it's quite plain you won't do me that courtesy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Coat of Many Colours:, @Fylbecatulous:, @Hafspajen: It is clear that feelings have been ruffled on all sides. Coat of Many Colours, you didn't answer my question in my comment, above, as to why it is so important to you that Fylbecatulous's comment and vote be stricken. Don't you expect more editors to come along, see the image, and vote? I think your nomination has a very good chance of passing, but if for some reason it doesn't, you can always nominate it again in a few weeks or months. I think that asking someone to strike his or her comment and vote can be perceived as bossy, as if you were the page's director, and some people don't like to be told what to do, or even asked to do something when in reality they perceive that they are being told what to do. Unless that is customary on Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidate pages, perhaps you ought not to ask people to strike their comments and votes. I've seen many other support-oppose discussions on WP FP Candidate pages where there is a polite exchange of concerns and information among a number of editors. I don't remember seeing, "Now that you realize you were wrong, would you kindly strike your vote?" On the other hand, I have seen votes stricken with a strike-through line. Presumably, the editor had changed his/her mind after learning something. If that is the custom here, we need to observe it.
    Fylbecatulous is right in saying that you should try to limit your comments to the image and not focus on the editor. Saying in a place where he and others can read it that he is "a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate" exacerbated the situation. He was already upset before that, and this made him more upset. He may have seemed "unwilling to cooperate" when he failed to strike his comment and his vote, but it is clear he was upset with your request.
    I think that if an editor constantly makes comments at WP FP Candidate discussions that are full of wrong information or express irrelevant concerns, more than one other editor will probably say something to him/her. But no one can accuse a new editor of constantly doing anything if he/she has not been editing very long.
    Coat of Many Colours, I myself have made the mistake of thinking that if something would be easy for me to do, it ought to be easy for others to do. You wrote, above, "When I make a mistake in this forum, I courteously acknowledge that I have so and make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right." While I agree that part of polite discussion is to admit when one is wrong, it isn't always necessary to do that. One can simply desist from continuing to argue one's point of view. However, you wanted Fylbecatulous to "make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right", which to you would have been for him/her to strike his/her vote. You may have felt that was the appropriate action, but Fylbecatulous may not have felt it was necessary. That doesn't mean he/she was uncooperative, and to accuse him/her of being uncooperative made things worse.
    Sometimes, it is not what you say that causes problems, but how you say it. Sometimes, it is what you say that causes the problem. I'm not 100% sure which of these is the case here, but perhaps we can put this behind us and focus on the image. You're all so bright, and I have enjoyed reading your comments and learning from them, and perhaps others have, also. CorinneSD (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Corinne. You are brave. Maybe you are right - C.o.m.c. is affraid that more editors to come along, see the image, and vote... Now when this nomination so effectively is killed, spitted on and dragged in the mud - what an annoyance would be if two more headstrong editors would come by and vote in the very last 24 hours, hahaha what a dissapoitment that would be, that would be really funny... Well, Insha'Allah, - "os mynn Duw". Hafspajen (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @CorinneSD: Thank you for your remarks Corinne. I'm sure that's a sensible analysis. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So here's where Fylbecatulous gets to speak for myself. Again, my motives have not been accurately described by others, but thank you, CorrineSD, for quite kind and affirmative comments on my behalf. Really appreciated. My reason for not reverting or striking my vote, (which was cast in the light of the best knowledge I have about the criteria, as dim as it may be), has nothing to do with defiance, embarrassment, pride, being upset, whatever. Here's the thing. There has become a perception by myself from lurking and from others who participate frequently; that the atmosphere is recently becoming difficult, unfriendly, snarky, and argumentative. A hostile environment where there used to be civility. This exchange for this submission is just one example.
    I am simply standing my ground and therefore not reinforcing what I perceive to be bad behaviour towards another editor (in this case, me), (but that has been duly noted by others as well). If I give in to being bullied or coerced and pinged or talked about in a bad light, and strike my vote, made in good faith, due to feeling intimidated; I have just reinforced the negative behaviour that we wish would go away. So I do not question authority, so if one of those admins happens along that keep getting pinged to this thread; and requests me to amend or strike my comments or vote, I shall do so on that basis, Otherwise, the nominator and one who has been hassling me, is no more an authority than I, so I intend to ignore. Perhaps an admin would also remove the two unrelated images that were added to make fun of Hafspajen's entry elsewhere. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Word count: 3,000. Sca (talk) 13:47, 28 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 August 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|File:file_name.xxx}} 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|File:file_name.xxx}} 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 August 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.

Aerial photo of a 100 foot Blue Whale cresting off Southern California[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 04:20:41 (UTC)

Original – Aerial photo of a 100 foot Blue Whale
Reason
It is a remarkable perspective few have ever seen, much less photographed
Articles in which this image appears
Blue whale
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
WPPilot
  • Support as nominatortalk→ WPPilot  04:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Fine image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way under minimum resolution, added less than a week ago, not the lead image, and you can barely see the whale. I have no clue why Coat of Many Colours considers this a fine image. Honestly, I would like to know. Mattximus (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Senior moment ... I got carried away by its EV, but researching a little I can't see it's quite as rare as Pilot says. I'll leave my vote as it is, vote and be damned I say, but yes *hand quite properly smacked* and I'll be more careful in future. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Mattximus. Might have been a 'great capture,' but alas as a photo it's substandard. Sca (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Valuable, but I do not feel that the value outweighs the technical problems enough for this one to be featurable. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Image quality is simply too lacking. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)



Aerial Photo of the 80 foot motor yacht "Alchemist" [edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 01:41:22 (UTC)

Original – Motor Yacht "The Alchemist"
Reason
Wonderful high res photo of a 80 foot motor yacht at full speed taken from aircraft.
Articles in which this image appears
Yacht - Motorboat - Luxury yacht - Gulfstar Yachts
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator
WPPilot
  • Support as nominatortalk→ WPPilot  01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, excellent. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lots of noise, especially chroma noise. Seems underexposed and lacking detail. The angle-of-view would be more involving if lower. Is this really our best picture of a yacht? -- Colin°Talk
Comment See Alt:. talk→ WPPilot  21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Alt: 80 foot motor yacht Alchemist
  • Oppose — Speedboat on water. EV? Aesthetic value? Sca (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sca, it at 80 feet is actually considered a Super Yacht, and I do not think that anyone in the boating community would ever consider this just a Speed Boat. With regard to Aesthetic value, Commons has few Aerial photos of any boats this one is from the DEA, Created: 2004-12-01 or this one a coast guard shot from 2007, are the only aerial photos I have seen. talk→ WPPilot  15:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I very much liked the original here, which I thought striking indeed. But I can't fault the technical objections raised. If it was a historical image, then per the guidelines that wouldn't matter. But that's not the case here and frankly Pilot has to up his (her) game. It's a bore, I agree. I have a whole load of images shot on my own gear I know are very fine from a compositional point of view, but I can't in all honesty advance them as "featured". Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow that was a fun ride from" Yes, excellent" to "It's a bore" in a few short hours. OK, Coat of Many Colours thank you for your comments, I have, in the past already been able to retain a featured photo status for aerial shots of yachts: File:Cabo San Lucas Race Start 2013 photo D Ramey Logan.jpg and perhaps, if the airplane in your own gear bag is running ok would you mind showing me how it is I "up my game", as I would love to know, what your talking about in detail. Aerial photos here, on Wikipedia are not that common nor relatively easy to get as it is not easy to fly, and shoot :) talk→ WPPilot  02:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, it's the issue of technical excellence that is a bore, not the image, which as I say has wow for me. Wish you better luck with your other entries and I shall always be happy to support the ones that wow me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since there's not much to give it a sense of scale, it's only somewhat interesting after you read the description, not on first sight. Otherwise it's framed like any number of vanity aerial boat shots. I don't think I've learned or felt a single new thing from it. Slightly bigger than usual boat, as seen from above. I'm sure it would be fun to be in the plane or in the boat, but the picture doesn't capture that.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)



Auguste Renoir - Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 23:39:37 (UTC)

Original – Auguste Renoir - Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette
Detail
Smaller version (ex Whitney)
Reason
One of Renoir's most iconic images. A Google Art Project Gigapixel image (638 MP)
Articles in which this image appears
Bal du moulin de la Galette
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Pierre-Auguste Renoir
  • It is exact the same picture, but file has more pixels - and the colors have a greenish hue - versus original that has a different - pinkish hue, very much like like here. Hafspajen (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I spent significant time contributing to the last nomination. The original file nominated was effectively unsourced (i.e. sourced to the museum but the actual image significantly edited - this happens all the time). I noted that with a neutral "Comment". Another long-standing editor then opposed the nomination on the grounds that it lacked sufficient pixels given the size of the painting. At that point I proposed the Google Gigapixel image as an alternative and constructively (and cooperatively) debated the subsequent objection about the colour values. Late yesterday evening I was astonished to discover all that significant input "withdrawn".
    I think there is a debate that should be had here about the authenticity of so-called "Featured" images of works of art. You will forgive me for reaching the conclusion that this is not the place to pursue the debate. I am simply not prepared to invest the time when I am treated like this. Over at Commons I made a nomination Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#File:Johannes_Vermeer_-_Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring_-_Maurtishuis_670.jpg regarding the so-called "Dutch Mona Lisa", one of the best loved paintings in the world and certainly by me from my very earliest childhood, nevertheless a painting whose "Featured" image on Commons is an absolute travesty of the original, frankly a parody, which I think effectively encapsulates the problems we are facing with these Featured pictures.
    I shall continue to vote here. I rather enjoy looking at the "own work" images uploaded by editors here and would certainly wish to support their efforts. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As for this image, all I can say is that the thumbnail does indeed suck , but when I get it into Windows Live Photo Gallery screen size it's absolutely beautiful and as I mentioned VintPrint do it for their poster. The only pity is that it won't zoom for me because the file is far too large, and in fact I don't have any applications that will accept it. I don't know why thumbnails of these Gigapixel images suck so. I have suggested what seems to me a sensible workround in LCH space, rather better I suggest than DCoetzee's Photoshop Curves edits, which introduce unpleasant colour casts as they must when you are equalising 10% or more of the histogram in RGB space in this way, but I didn't receive a single constructive remark about that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ... oh, and BTW, the version originally uploaded is not the version in the Musée d'Orsay, but rather a smaller version sold for a record price by Sotheby's in 1990 and now in a Swiss private collection. HTH. Of course one would be so very grateful and obliged were the d'Orsay version I nominate here to receive support. Thank you all so very much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually not it turns out, but it is unsourced and it emphatically is not is the museum image. I've got the Sotheby's image now and scanned it, but it was from a foldout and I'm going bonkers learning how to Inpaint the crease out, so it may be a day or two before I can get it in. It's almost exactly the same, but there are some minor differences (for example the central figure leaning over lacks an earring). The catalogue reproduces the d'Orsay image in the same 'dark green' colours as the museum image. Yet another source that unfortunately doesn't process its reproductions properly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Hey...whoever took the photograph did their best and it just isn't good enough. This artist's use of color can be difficult to capture in the low lighting of a museum. Trust me...I know this from experience.[1]. Perhaps one day when working with GLAM we can get better images but we can't just hand this a Feature status because it has more pixels. As Hafspajen states, this image has a greenish hue and I also note is far too dark.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless it's the image used by VintPrint and Google. It's the thumbnail that looks green. The image itself at 100% is stunning. Remember the thumbnailing process is a simple algorithm that averages pixel values. It may not be equally effective for all images. It's the image we should be judging and not its thumbnail. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added a detail from the original so editors can judge closer to the mark (it still needs to be opened). An interesting feature of this painting is that it depicts both natural and artificial light (gaslight), a combination I suspect we are not too familiar with today. I should think that's where most of the grief is coming from here. To repeat, my comment (it was not an oppose) about the previous nomination was simply that the image was unsourced. i.e. to say it plainly was not the museum image as the file claimed. I simply can't find a plausible candidate for the original image nominated. At least a couple of websites suggest that is in fact an image of an earlier version auctioned 1990. I've ordered the relevant catalogue and will upload a (sourced) image of that in time.
    Done my best here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify, what I'm suggesting is that Renoir might well have laid down a thin glaze of a greenish hue to suggest gaslight. If that is so, then the presence of that in every single pixel might well get concentrated down in the thumbnail. To repeat, it's the original we should be judging, not the thumbnail. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That seems to assume a great deal. Your argument does not convince me but mainly because you are emphasizing things that are not relevant and are just guesses. Having VintPrint and Google use this image is not a standard for feature Picture. I would like to see a true "own work" uploaded. Where is this painting located now?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already made the tests and I can confirm that is what seems to be the problem here, on the assumption of course that Renoir did lay down the sort of glaze I suggest. But I don't know this painting at all, though I must have walked past it literally dozens, even hundreds, of times. I don't really care very much for Renoir.
    There are two versions of this painting. An earlier smaller version of the painting which I gather is not so atmospheric nor well defined. This is the version that was formerly in the Whitney collection and was sold for a record price in 1990 to a Japanese shipping magnate and since, allegedly, by private sale to a Swiss collector. I've never seen this painting, nor can I find a convincigly sourced image of it and as far as I know it hasn't been exhibited since 1990. I've ordered the 1990 sale catalogue and if possible will upload a scan to Commons.
    The other version is in the Musee D'orsay. It's an exact copy in every detail of the original, but it's larger. In the course of what I took to be a perfectly ordinary discussion in the last nomination, I gave the Google Virtual Tour location of this painting, which provoked the nominating editor to withdraw his nomination. Here is is again, though you have to walk a couple of rooms to the left of this point (to room 32, fifth floor)Ah it's more complicated. Take the lift to the fifth floor. Which room you end up in seems pretty random. In the strip of thumbnails below, click on Luncheon on the Grass (nominated below). That will take you to the room with Whistler's Mother. Now walk two rooms to the left. It looks absolutely stunning under a combinatation of the gallery lights and natural light coming in from the vaulting above, and you can see that its general impression from a distance is indeed somewhat greenish, though not as pronounced as the thumbanail, and certainly not the pinkish version originally supplied in the last nomination. As I pointed out in a *comment* (I wasn't opposing) that image is effectively unsourced as it's given as the museum image in the description, but plainly isn't their image.
    Regarding your comment about assumptions, if that's a reference to gaslight, then that's not an assumption. The museum description confirms it as image bathed in both natural and artificial light: "The study of the moving crowd, bathed in natural and artificial light, is handled using vibrant, brightly coloured brushstrokes".
    I hope this is useful and that at least this time my remarks will be allowed to stand. I can't but help thinking I'm on a hiding to nothing here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way I like "own works" too. I always link my Commons file descriptions to a framed work if I can find one. I know a couple of Flickr editors who upload excellent images, but they're "all rights reserved". As a general proposition own works can't compete with gallery images, because flashlight and ancillary lighting isn't usually permitted. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2014‎
  • I had a very valid reason witdrawing my nomination. This picture, that I actually had withdrawn, is too dark. Impressionists painted sunshine. This PDF say that he painted it in the afrernoon. Most painters wouldn't try such a complicated subject to paint both artifical and sunlight (that would make the shadows look like if they were comming from several directions) - and the impessionist most certainly wouldn't. They wanted to catch the light and the sunshine of the moment. And, of course - with so much sunshine one wouldn't be able to see if the lights from the artificial light either, anyway - if the artifical lights were on - because the sunshine is always stronger. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The museum description confirms it as an image bathed in both natural and artificial light: "The study of the moving crowd, bathed in natural and artificial light, is handled using vibrant, brightly coloured brushstrokes". Not doing very well the museum, is it? Not only does it give the painting the wrong colours, it doesn't even describe it properly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)



Luncheon on the Grass[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 19:59:36 (UTC)

Original – Luncheon on the Grass which provoked the outrage of the French society over the model painted without her clothes together with two fully dessed men.
Reason
Manet created a scandal when he exhibited Le déjeuner sur l'herbe, in which a model is depicted naked. Portraits and nudes even without a pretense to allegorical or mythological meaning were a fairly common genre of art during all centuries. Paintings of non-allegoric depictions of nude females were not uncommon, especially paintings of mistresses and lovers of kings, dukes and other aristocrats and mistresses and wives of the artists. Luncheon on the Grass was different in only one way, it was exhibited on a public art exhibition and was a profane female nude depicted in a contemporary enviroment.
Articles in which this image appears
The Luncheon on the Grass; Salon des Refusés; Succès de scandale; A Woman with No Clothes On;1863 in art; Édouard Manet; + c. 12 more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Édouard Manet

Promoted File:Edouard Manet - Luncheon on the Grass - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)



File:Worcester Cathedral Cloister, Worcestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 13:53:50 (UTC)

Original – The cloister of Worcester Cathedral, Worcestershire, England.
Reason
It's an interesting view of the cloister of Worcester Cathedral. As HDR tone mapping was used (and is used in virtually all my interiors), some detail of the cathedral is visible through the glass windows. This would normally be washed out (and probably the shadow detail would also be lost, as it's an extremely contrasty scene). In the foreground on the left is (I believe) an old radiator used to keep the cloister heated in winter.
Articles in which this image appears
Worcester Cathedral
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 13:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support –--Hafspajen (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Interesting perspective. The detail of the floor, the windows, and the ceiling is amazing. CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - nice picture but the far right window makes the ceiling above it look steamy (I know it's the sun's glare). ///EuroCarGT 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - Why not go with a set? The images you got were stunning... I'm just not sure if the cloisters on their own have the EV to pass the featured bar. Don't see much detail on the cloisters in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • True. I did consider sets but it's a lot of photos and I didn't want to overwhelm. There could easily be 10-20 sets of 5+ photos by the time I'm done. But I suppose you're right, it may be better than lower EV individual images. Part of the problem is that we need more cathedral article contributors. It's too much for me to sufficiently expand that many articles. I'm just a photo guy. ;-) I'm happy to withdraw the nom and renominate the set though. Thoughts, anyone? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, based on the response here I think it's obvious my concerns are not shared by other reviewers. No worries. (BTW, Support on technical quality; we can find some more information on the cloisters later) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Great detail and perspective.--Godot13 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Worcester Cathedral Cloister, Worcestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)



Northern mockingbird[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 07:16:18 (UTC)

Original – An adult Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) in New Hampshire
Reason
Much larger image than the one it just replaced as the lede image for the Northern mockingbird article. Because of the increase in quality I feel that waiting 7 days is unnecessary. The file is already in use on the English, French, Spanish, and other language Wikipedias.
Articles in which this image appears
Northern mockingbird, List of U.S. state birds, Hidalgo (state), Michoacán
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Captain-tucker
  • Support as nominatorPine 07:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. It's very noisy at 100%. And slightly overexposed too if I'm picky. It doesn't really compare to the best of our bird photography. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – We don't often see a photo of a bird at right angles to the side -- a kind of silhouette pose. Also, I like the reflection of the green leaves on the underside of the bird. CorinneSD (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ðiliff. Also, IMO, there are some jpeg artefacts visible in the background and the tail of the bird. Sorry. Nikhil (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Ðiliff and Nikhil, please feel free to check the image again (I've uploaded an edit; exposure lowered by 0.2, some contrast and clearness adjustments; noise reduction). Sadly I wasn't able to remove all of the JPG artefacts. You may need to purge your cache. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a pretty classy edit which gets my seal of approval. Much improved. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, great job with the edit there. But still, IMHO, from what I have learnt through my time at FPC, leaves look overexposed causing distraction from the main subject. The quality of the image is still not as per the FP standards for bird pics. I would like to know what Ðiliff thinks about it. Nikhil (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no way to entirely fix the exposure (there's just no detail on some of those leaves), sadly, but dropping the highlights by 10 or 15% might minimize the glare while avoiding most of the icky grey that comes from reducing highlights too much. Of course, I'll wait for Diliff to weigh in before toying with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Off topic I know, but any twitchers here able to identify this for me? I want it to be something fantastically rare of course. Taken a few weeks ago somewhere in the EU quite a lot to the left of anywhere on the map. Snapped without fill-in flash, so that eye-colour is natural. It's the eye colour that defeats me. Location was an old train embankment in a woody area. Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)




File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 2, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2014 at 14:40:20 (UTC)

Original – The lady chapel in Salisbury Cathedral, Wiltshire, England.
Reason
It's a beautiful section of Salisbury Cathedral, which in itself is quite an attractive cathedral in general. Although the blues of the stained glass are quite vivid in the image, they were even more impressive in person, and really contrasted nicely against the peachy hues of the chapel walls and ceiling. Pictured below the stained glass is an installation by artist Nicholas Pope called "The Apostles Speaking in Tongues Lit By Their Own Lamps".
Articles in which this image appears
Salisbury Cathedral and Nicholas Pope
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 14:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment What is the roof made of? the colour balance seems a little odd.©Geni (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what it's made of, but it's painted over (if you look carefully, you can see that the 'brickwork' pattern is painted on, but I'm not sure if it follows the actual brickwork or is 'faked' for artistic effect). I don't think the colour balance is off, the cloth on top of the stand in the middle is pretty close to white. There are incandescent lights pointed up at the ceiling in this image which would give it a warmer hue. On a brighter day with cooler natural lighting from outside and no interior lighting, it would look more like this I suppose. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • If its paint rather than bare stone that would explain the colour.©Geni (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree that it's clearly paint (notice how clean the crack at the top edge is?). Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I think the contrast between the blue windows and the yellow-peach of the rest of the chapel is gorgeous. I think it's interesting that while the windows are mainly blue with a little red, the reflection on the floor is purple. CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Quite a unique image and I am absolutely enraptured with the blue of the stained glass. Agree the blue contrasts pleasingly with the peachy hues. A keeper. Fylbecatulous talk 00:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 2, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:56, 29 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.