Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine 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. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also 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. To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured picture tools: Featured picture criteria Picture peer review Featured picture candidates Nomination procedure On Wikimedia Commons Featured picture candidates archive Featured pictures thumbs Picture of the day Picture of the day archive

Step 1: Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations. For specific advice on criteria and feedback on images, please post at picture peer review first.

Step 2: Create a subpage Create a page to place the image on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create a subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Step 3: Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list (direct link).

How to comment If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. 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 they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and are a Wikipedian, you should also notify them directly. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. Is my monitor calibrated correctly? 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. 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) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical information.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review.

Current nominations

FPCs needing feedback

George Washington

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 03:55:20 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart

Reason

High resolution and EV, good quality. Notable subject.

Articles in which this image appears

George Washington

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Gilbert Stuart

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rochussen

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 03:40:21 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of Governor General of the Dutch East Indies Jan Jacob Rochussen, by Nicolaas Pieneman

Reason

High quality and good scan. We don't have any FPs of Governor Generals of the Dutch East Indies.

Articles in which this image appears

Jan Jacob Rochussen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Nicolaas Pieneman, digitized by the Rijkmuseum

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lady with an Ermine

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 23:52:47 (UTC)

Original – Lady with an Ermine by Leonardo da Vinci, ca. 1489–1490.

Reason

One of the world masterpieces, although not currently in Google Art. The resolution nonetheless allows to inspect every crack. I've edited the image on arbitrary sight and any further corrections are welcome.

Articles in which this image appears

Lady with an Ermine, Cecilia Gallerani, List of works by Leonardo da Vinci, Kraków

FP category for this image

Paintings

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good, very detailed image --Stu Phillips (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, although it's only in 3 other articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 23:14:56 (UTC)

Original – The Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation, also known as the Church of St. Gabriel or St. Gabriel's Greek Orthodox Church, is an Eastern Orthodox church in Nazareth, Israel. Likely first established in Byzantine-era Palestine, it was rebuilt during the time of the Crusades, and again in the 18th century under the rule of Daher el-Omar, the Arab governor of the Galilee.

Reason

Illustrative image of high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Berthold Werner

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Floury Baker cicada

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 09:27:45 (UTC)

Original – Abricta curvicosta, commonly known as the floury baker, is a species of cicada found in Australia.

Reason

I had enough time setting up for this to achieve optimal quality. The details compare favourably to our only featured adult cicada. The only three images of this species on Commons were uploaded this year, and I think this is the best.

Articles in which this image appears

Abricta curvicosta

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very well executed. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Good image. Sharp enough when viewed at a reasonable size. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Question. Just had a quick read through the article and note that it says "Adult floury bakers always perch facing downwards". OK, so in this image the cicada is clearly not facing downwards - is this an aberration, not an adult, or has the photo been flipped? Just wondering how this impacts EV. --jjron (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Or has somebody make a fake edit? Clegs (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Good spot. I don't have a good answer to this except to say it just was. In fact, after getting a few good shots, I read the wiki article, and went back to the cicada to turn it face downward, but it very deliberately spun back around. There's definitely no photo manipulation (you can tell from the direction the "offshoot" bumps on the stem are pointing). It's clearly also an adult. So... ? --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I thought the same thing about the stem; it clearly looked to be facing the right way. Now it's hard to tell if that sentence in the article is actually referenced, as the nearest ref is at the end of the para, and unfortunately it's to a book so we can't check it easily. Hmmm, could be an error perhaps... --jjron (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So, this page confirms the downwards facing thing, but it does just look to be more like a personal blog site than anything scientific; so keep looking. --jjron (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The other question I guess is how certain are you of the species ID? --jjron (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Take a look at the Flickr pics. Some face up, some face down. The ID also seems consistent with these and the brisbane-insect pics. Maybe it's not-very-adult because it has so much "flour"? (If someone wants to redo the ID, back view is the same individual.) --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good shot. Support, unless jjron's concern proves to be true. Clegs (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wacht am Rhein

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 19:40:19 (UTC)

Original – Map showing the swelling of "the Bulge" as the German offensive progressed creating the nose-like salient during 16–25 December 1944 in the Battle of the Bulge.                      Front line, 16 December                      Front line, 20 December                      Front line, 25 December                      Allied movements                      German movements

Reason

FPCR#1: not totally applicable to this SVG, but colour-balance wise I think the neutral, fairly subtle green and supporting colours are suitably clear. #2: SVG, reasonably clear, most important detail readable at thumbnailing size. #3: I hope really informative. Also fairly aesthetically pleasing (more of a "not unpleasing"). #4: yes. #5: Good encyclopedic value, I would hope, in supporting text in primarily those articles below (and a few others which are weaker). The image has only been in place on Battle of the Bulge for two days, but it replaced a very similar raster version, and I sought views at WT:MILHIST (broadly positive, with a few tweaks suggest which have been made). I think this is about whether it will continue to be used in the article, and the two things I mention make me more confident that it will be. #6: US military source for the vast majority of the map (only the inset map is not; I do not think it needs verification). #7: captions, well, used in a variety of ways in the articles, with flexible legend-boxes and the like. #8: N/A.

Articles in which this image appears

Battle of the Bulge, Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive, Battle of Lanzerath Ridge and Siege of Bastogne

FP category for this image

Diagrams, drawings, and maps

Creator

User:Grandiose (derivative work).

Edit 1 Different hypsometric shading, larger movement arrows, added a key, Sans Serif font (to meet WP:WPMAPS/Conventions)

• Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Questions/comments I think it's mostly a good map, except for a few points. The file page does need sources for your lines, arrows and other squiggly things, otherwise how do we know it's true? The key needs to explain what the Roman Numerals mean. Some lines have more X's than others, while in other places there's stuff like LXXIV. What does all that mean? You've also got some of the blue and red lines dashed but others are solid, with no explanation in the key. What I do absolutely like is that the text is readable at thumbnail level so the reader can look at the map in conjunction with the article without having to navigate to the file page or actually download the file. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The American Military map is the source - I've made this clearer on the file page. I should be able to do something about the ROman numerals, only verifiability might be a problem. It's actually that the solid lines (with no arrowheads) are distinct from the dashed movements. Explaining these (they aren't on the original key) would also be difficult to reference, if referencing was important. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Added about the Roman numerals/army organisation. Also had a go at XXXX/XXXXX: please indicate if you want some sort of verification for that, or other clarity.

• Also, the key should be incorporated into the file rather than in the caption or file page. And some of the lines don't have arrowheads on them. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I requested the advice of Jarry1250, who informed me that he had previously been told to move out the legend to the file description page for another similar map. I tracked this down, it was by request of EyeSerene (here). I concur with the internationalisation approach – do you have a guideline or policy that conflicts? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• And the Allied line for 18 December near Luxembourg's south border needs colouring in. It's black after the X's. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's no guideline that conflicts, but consider a classroom teacher who distributes a printed version of the file to his students. Or an author who wants to use the map in a textbook or history book. A paper version will be incomplete without the key. The reason on Jarry's talk page seems false. Why is translating a key any different, or more difficult, than translating the rest of the words on the map such as place names and "Fifteenth Army"? Also look at our other Featured maps, especially the more recent ones that were drawn by Wikipedians - they all include the key in the file. For verification, just include cite the book like any other reference. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have files like File:Painted Turtle Distribution alternate.svg which therefore suggests it is down to preference, and mine is for allowing the file to be used without translation to 90% or so of its educational value. There are still words, admittedly, but they are few; preferably they would be none. There is no book, that's the problem. I know what the lines show etc. because I checked and was told on MILHIST. The main map source is the base map itself, which (unhelpfully) doesn't mention these particular meanings. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• I've uploaded an alternative version of the map. Mostly the changes are to make it fall inline with WP:WPMAPS's standards, but other stuff is just common map practice. I've changed the hypsometric tints so that white no longer indicates low-lying land (white is usually reserved for the highest mountain peaks); Font face is changed to a sans-serif one; the movement arrows are bigger and the division lines are now dashed so there is more difference between the two; the international border lines are shaded grey and river colours changed slightly, both per WPMAPS; added a key. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment My first impression is that this is too busy and hard to make sense of with so many lines everywhere. Some suggestions which may help:
  • Keep the colour for the altitude, but ditch the darker borders where the height changes.
  • Use sans-serif fonts rather than serif ones.
  • Use smaller text, perhaps like File:Waterloo_Campaign_map-alt3.svg to indicate the names of divisions etc.
  • Use solid lines, perhaps semi-transparent to indicate troop movements.
  • Use a different colour for front lines. It is too easily confused with country borders at the moment.
  • You could use shading of the troop movement lines to indicate progression with respect to time.
  • A key in the image in the context box top left would be nice.
  • Put the country names in the context box where they are easier to pick out.
• I suggest you take a look at a few of the existing similar FPs too. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed the altitude borders – makes a big difference, I think. I've also changed the colour of the front lines to purple (couldn't think of another). Added a description on the key, albeit a short one. I disagree with moving the country labels to the smaller map, I can't help but think the viewer will be flicking between the two to establish which bits of the big map are which bits of the little map - I don't think the country labels are particularly intrusive on the main image. Would you like me to pursue the other things (as I say, the altitude lines make a big difference)? I so, they need further consideration.

Can I upload the new version straight over the last? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Going to upload it, hope that's OK. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fluorescent proteins

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 14:44:38 (UTC)

Original – A beach scene drawn with bacterial colonies expressing fluorescent proteins

Reason

This is a good quality picture displaying the colour palette obtained with fluorescent proteins expressed in bacteria. A striking image.

Articles in which this image appears

Green_fluorescent_protein

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

AndrewHires

• Support as nominator --Jakstat (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Very cool but also very small with a max 800 × 800 pixels. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Saffron's comment. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too small, will probably look blurry at higher res. Clegs (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kniphofia uvaria

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 15:56:21 (UTC)

Original – A clump of Kniphofia uvaria on the shore of Lake Jindabyne in Australia

Reason

Strong EV, high quality and good composition

Articles in which this image appears

Kniphofia uvaria

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nomination. --99of9 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unfortunately. I think we could do with some more 'whole plant' images along with our many predominantly flower-only plant FPs, and this is nicely composed and shot. Sadly the main bush at the left, and particularly the flower spikes, are just too soft focus and lacking in detail. And to add a non-criteria value judgement, I must say that this loses some points with me for being an environmental weed in the location in which it was photographed (sort of like how some people are rather anti photos of animals taken in zoos and the like). --jjron (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• For those following on from this review: When evaluating sharpness, please take into account that my images are not downsampled. Viewing full-res is at 10 MPx, well beyond our requirements, so naturally I could have downsampled to make it appear more sharp (but there is good reason not to do so). --99of9 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Which is why I made the point about the lack of detail on the flowers; it's not just about sharpness. Whether or not you upload full-res is your prerogative, but downsampling isn't going to add any more detail. --jjron (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think the technical aspects are good enough. Clegs (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sweet Sweetback poster

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 00:15:39 (UTC)

Original – Film poster for Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, a 1971 film by Melvin Van Peebles

Reason

High resolution and good quality, good EV for its representation of a notable film (bonus points for being in a GA)

Articles in which this image appears

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

Employee(s) of Cinemation Industries, restored by PawełMM

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Firstly, the image isn't straight and has a scan-border which should be cropped. Secondly, there's a fair bit of artifacting going on around throughout, particularly noticeable around the red writing at the bottom. Nikthestoned 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose tilt and artifacting. Clegs (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Needs to be perspective corrected, cropped, and the restoration could be a little better. Suffers from excessive jpg compression and it's really not a very high quality photo/scan all the way around. The *only* thing going for it is high resolution, but that doesn't make up for its flaws. – JBarta (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sir Thomas More

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 00:10:33 (UTC)

Original – Hans Holbein the Younger's Portrait of Sir Thomas More, a 1527 painting measuring 74.2 cm × 59 cm (29.2 in × 23 in)

Reason

At a recent delist nomination, this image was suggested as a replacement. I agree that the image is of high quality, so it would be nice to have as a FP. If the delist nominator, P. S. Burton, feels as if s/he should be conominator for this image, s/he should feel free to add her/himself.

Articles in which this image appears

Portrait of Sir Thomas More (Holbein), Thomas More, and others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Hans Holbein the Younger, digitized by Google Art Project

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The picture is high-quality, and seems to convey a moody, if not downright gloomy, atmosphere that fits the circumstance surrounding the end of this chap's life. dci | TALK 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I can't comment on the accuracy of colour / tone (as per the concerns in the delist nom) however this seems to be a very high quality repro of a notable work. Nikthestoned 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my comments on D&R nom. Clegs (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support (no need to co-nominate) –P. S. Burton (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Great. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support--Stu Phillips (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Question -- It's loaded with prominent white specs. First, are those actually visible if you stand in front of the painting or are they brought out by the camera? Second, wouldn't we want to carefully clean up a few of those spots before making it a featured picture? – JBarta (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've never seen the original, so I can't comment either way on if it has it. The other Google Art images don't have random white specks, that I've seen. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Phillips Square

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 09:13:21 (UTC)

Original – Nathan Phillips Square is an urban plaza that forms the forecourt to Toronto City Hall, or New City Hall, at the intersection of Queen Street West and Bay Street, and named for Nathan Phillips, mayor of Toronto from 1955 to 1962.

Reason

Strong EV, great shot

Articles in which this image appears

Nathan Phillips Square

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good clean quality, interesting mix of architecture... gazhiley 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Pretty good quality, well framed for such a busy place. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Everything the Commons FPC voters, myself included, said. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I keep wanting to support this, in terms of effort and quality, but just can't. I find the distortions too disturbing - this is really much too close to the surrounding buildings to take in a 180° panorama (the buildings at image left are on the same straight road as those on image right, yet we're looking face-on at both of them). Old City Hall (Toronto) is very uncomfortably warped, and the Square itself gets a really weird shape (spend a bit of time reconciling it with this 'straight' image of the Square for example; in fact I spent quite some time trying to work out what I was actually looking at using several other articles/images and Google Maps and street view before I really felt sure what was in this and where it had been taken from). I'm also not entirely convinced about the colours. Maybe if you want people spending ages trying to figure out what this place really looks like this is a good prompter, but the distortions kills the EV for me. Something a bit less ambitious in terms of angle of view would IMO come up more pleasant and informative. --jjron (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per my commons statement and the fact it takes quite a bit more than a wide angle persepctive to disturb me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Australian Reed-warbler

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 23:13:49 (UTC)

Original – Australian Reed-warbler (Acrocephalus australis), Jerrabomberra Wetlands, Canberra, Australia

Reason

This species is quite common in mainland wetlands, but has a tendency to cause a little excitement when found in Tasmania. It is usually found clinging to reeds, and is often partially obscured, making photography more challenging.

Articles in which this image appears

Australian Reed-warbler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose -- The reed looks too bright. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Blown out highlights on the left of the reed the warbler is standing on and maybe on the tail of the bird/nearby reed where the contrast between bird and reed is lost a bit. God Emperor^Talk 00:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Australasian Grebe

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 23:10:39 (UTC)

Original – Australasian Grebe (Tachybaptus novaehollandiae), Mulligan Flat Nature Reserve, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Reason

This species is seemingly a bit more common than in Tasmania. This image would complete our featured picture collection for the Grebes usually found in Australia.

Articles in which this image appears

Australasian Grebe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Significantly better than the other images on the page. Additionally, I find the reflection quite aesthetically pleasing. Nikthestoned 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The histogram seems very biased to the bright end, I would suggest a bit of a gamma tweak... - Zephyris _Talk 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The exposure is correct. The histogram needs to be looked at in context - most of the image in pixel area is the reflection of bright, sunlit trees and grass on the water. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Black-fronted Dotterel

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 23:07:02 (UTC)

Original – Black-fronted Dotterel (Elseyornis melanops), Fyshwick Sewage Treatment Plant, Canberra, Australia

Reason

High quality, clear view of plumage, good background separation.

Articles in which this image appears

Black-fronted Dotterel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Something odd happened with the legs - they aren't entirely visible. Brandmeister t 05:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They have sunk into the mud - you can see quite a lot of mud on the legs if you look at them carefully. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. Laura will be (probably pretend) peeved that you still got bird FPs in Canberra but haven't had a basketball player nomination, LOL Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Priorities, priorities :) JJ Harrison (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Shame my pix all disappeared though (AKA laptop is fixed, but data is gone... s***) Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That sucks, I usually protect a few of the best images and leave them on my card until I get home. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Good shot. Clegs (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 16:24:57 (UTC)

Original – The cover of Popular Science painted by Norman Rockwell showing an inventor and his Perpetual Motion machine.

Reason

Sadly, I can not find a Boy Scout painting by Rockwell that is PD and of a High Quality. I did find this gem. It looks good and is in the style of all early - Mid 1900s magazine covers.

Articles in which this image appears

Perpetual motion, Norman Rockwell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Norman Rockwell, Popular Science

• Support as nominator --Guerillero | My Talk 16:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. It looks like the cover has been imperfectly scanned - the date and price are partly cutoff at the top which is unlikely to have been how it was made, and there's black borders on the sides and bottom that are unlikely to be part of the original cover. I do like it as a cover pic though. --jjron (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That is what the google books scan looks like. I can't find another source to fix the scan --Guerillero | My Talk 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    Other scans do include it though... Nikthestoned 09:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

    But none of size. I wonder If there is a collection near me who has a copy and the equipment to make a scan. *goes off to look* --Guerillero | My Talk 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per jjron's comments regarding the scan. Would also need some slight restoration. I love the subject itself however. Jujutacular (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per scan issues. Nikthestoned 16:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Église Saint-Girons

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 15:38:54 (UTC)

Original – Heart of oak frame inside the church Église Saint-Girons, representing Medieval architecture. It is now a tourist attraction.

Reason

A beautiful and useful picture

Articles in which this image appears

Église Saint-Girons, Oak, Monein

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Myrabella

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the picture seems dark to me and the Depth of Field seems strange --Guerillero | My Talk 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Weird focus issues... and too dark... gazhiley 22:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question What are we looking at? The main hall? The attic? The cellar? Need some details. It is kind of an interesting picture, it's very unique. Dusty777 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Samois-sur-Seine

Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 15:32:51 (UTC)

Original – Samois-sur-Seine, on the banks of the Seine.

Reason

Nice photo of high quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Samois-sur-Seine

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Myrabella

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - image needs to be straightened... I'd also like to see more to the right, this image feels like it's arbitrarily cut-off. Nikthestoned 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose tilted, cut off, and generally feels like a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking east from Mt Jerusalem

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 23:57:55 (UTC)

Original – Looking east from Mt Jerusalem, Walls of Jerusalem National Park, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

High EV, annotated at commons, high quality, geocoded. One can see a few peaks in common with File:Pelion Range from Mt Oakleigh.jpg.

Articles in which this image appears

Walls of Jerusalem National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This is a really nice photo but there's some blurring about a third of the way in from the right. Can this be fixed at all, if it's a stitching error? --Stu Phillips (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think I can do anything about it unfortunately. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per large OOF section, which I find pretty distracting... Nikthestoned 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Studley Royal Park, Ripon

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 20:28:32 (UTC)

Original – Studley Royal Park, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site surrounding the Cistercian Fountains Abbey (seen in the background of this image) in Ripon, England.

Reason

A fairly high resolution image with good exposure displaying an area within an UNESCO World Heritage Site (of which the main point of such site is viewable in the background of the image).

Articles in which this image appears

Studley Royal Park, Ripon, Fountains Abbey

FP category for this image

Places

Creator

silver_doctor on Flickr

• Support as nominator --Inops (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Either by gratuitous use of an grad ND filter or post processing the sky has been left too dark to be realistic. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Off-centre, waterbody cut off on right side. A nice looking place, for sure, and we should be able to get a replacement picture worthy of being featured. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous comments. —Eustress ^talk 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Clustered Bonnet, Mycena inclinata

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 18:02:19 (UTC)

Original – Mycena inclinata, commonly known as the Clustered Bonnet, is a widespread species of mushroom in the Mycenaceae family, found in Europe, North Africa, Asia, Australasia, and North America, where it grows in small groups or tufts on fallen logs and stumps, especially of oak.

Reason

Fortunate lighting made this cluster of mushrooms an ideal subject for the species. Stem colouring, white hairs and 'scalloped' cap edges are all visible. This photo has high resolution and good EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Mycena inclinata, Mycène inclinée, Mycena inclinata

FP category for this image

Fungi

Creator

Stu Phillips

• Support as nominator --Stu Phillips 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Had my eye on this one for a little while; it's wonderfully composed, striking and an excellent aid to identification. It serves well as a lead image for a decent article. You can see why the species's called a clustered bonnet! J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seeing as I recommended the edit and suggested it be nominated FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per myself on commons: Aperture leaves the sharpness lacking a bit, but there is plenty of detail and it is a really nice picture. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Yes thanks to Saffron Blaze for recommending the edit and FP nomination, and J Milburn for adding to the article --Stu Phillips (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Quite nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tomer T (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Church of the Archangel Gabriel, Moscow

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 16:28:18 (UTC)

Original – The Church of Archangel Gabriel, also called the Menshikov Tower, is a Russian Orthodox Church, located in the Central Administrative Okrug of Moscow.

Reason

High resolution, great composition, high EV, our best picture of this building

Articles in which this image appears

Menshikov Tower, Russian architecture, List of churches in Moscow

FP category for this image

Creator

NVO

• Support as nominator --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The crop is extremely tight and cuts off a little at the bottom left. I presume it's because there's other stuff around, such as the lampposts and another building that just start to creep in at the top of the photo on both sides. And it looks very slanty. There isn't a straight vertical line anywhere. Lastly, it looks a bit blurry, but in all fairness that might very well be my failing eyes! Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Distracting elements at top, perspective issues, underexposure, low resolution, ... . JJ Harrison (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Matthewedwards. --Nanoman657 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and the tilt --Guerillero | My Talk 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybach Exelero

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 11:32:59 (UTC)

Original – The Exelero is a high-performance sports car designed by German luxury car manufacturer Maybach.

Reason

Nice pic of a nice car. Since each bird species can have a FP, then this car model can.

Articles in which this image appears

Maybach Exelero, Maybach

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Simon Davison

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 11:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I really wish we could have that without the people walking behind it. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but the headlights are much too light. Furthermore people without heads are not attractive. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find this to a rather unflattering image of the car due to the perspective. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The chomped off people and stuff makes this a snapshot rather than a professional looking photo. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Salt Lake Temple, Utah

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 10:51:33 (UTC)

Original – The Salt Lake Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Reason

Large clear image of a notable subject.

Articles in which this image appears

Salt Lake Temple, Temple Square, Holy of Holies (LDS Church)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Diliff

Recolored version Alt 1

The original is used in Temple Square and Holy of Holies (LDS Church), and Alt 1 is used in the Salt Lake Temple article. Alt 1 is recolored.

• Support either version as nominator --Pine^talk 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support alt 1 Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support alt 1 - EV ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Alt 1's colours are a bit unrealistic, and there is banding/posterization as well as blown highlights in the sky. If people prefer the high contrast look, I'm sure a better compromise can be found that doesn't have all of the above faults. I'll process the image from the originals and upload tonight maybe. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded an improved version over the top of the original, with more contrast, a bit of a saturation boost (but not as much as the alt), and a bit more pixels. You might need to refresh things to see it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The sun is simply at the wrong angle. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support alt 1 Tomer T (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Lighting just isn't right. Clegs (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per JJ & Clegs. Nikthestoned 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Weird sun spots on temple. —Eustress ^talk 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Photographed with sun in a poor location. Alt 1 over-exposed. Sun spots, but no lens flare. DavidH (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The "New" Blue Marble

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 01:14:22 (UTC)

Original – A 'Blue Marble' image of the Earth taken from the VIIRS instrument aboard NASA's most recently launched Earth-observing satellite - Suomi NPP. This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth's surface taken on January 4, 2012. This view results from a height of the satellite which is about 513 miles (826 km) above the surface of the Earth. Because of such a low orbit, the whole hemisphere is visible, and horizon is in a distance of only about 2,050 miles (3,300 km) while the radius of our planet is 3,958 miles (6,370 km). The diameter of horizon seen from such a height is about 125 deg.

Comparison only! Showing that the proportions are correct to the nominated picture

Reason

Excellent quality! Not many pictures of the western hemisphere of this type, high EV, Great picture.

Articles in which this image appears

The Blue Marble

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Space/Looking back

Creator

National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because of wrong proportions of the continents, as already mentioned on Commons (though I can't find trace of it). Something wrong with mapping/stitching process. - Blieusong (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A lower simulated orbit is what I understood. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Blieusong, clarify this for me. You are opposing because of wrong proportions of the continents, yet you don't see this problem in the picture? (That doesn't make sense.) The Featured Picture Criteria doesn't say anywhere that you can judge your vote just because of something someone else says about the picture. I don't see what the guys over at Commons are referring to. I have never gone to space so I wouldn't know how the continents are proportioned. Dusty777 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never been to space (unlikely to ever happen) but I've already looked at globes and America doesn't look like this wherever I look at them from. I don't follow other judgements recklessly, my reference to Commons was only for information. I also just opened a google earth and tried to find a point of view which would mimick the candidate. I haven't been successful so far, but would be happy to see a proof of the contrary. Note that I assumed this is view simulating what one would see from space (which I guess is what most would do, and not take it as a result of specific projection). - Blieusong (talk)

• Just realizing this is only a low orbit view (as mentioned) but with a very large field of view squeezed into small frame, hence that strange (to me) effect. - Blieusong (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- There is nothing wrong with mapping, as already explained in Commons (see here: [1]). The cause for the apparent distortion is the small altitude of the camera, making the horizon closer and the field of view shorter. That is why I find this picture interesting and deserving the FP status. But not before an explanation is given both in the picture file and in the caption. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• It should be much more clear that this isn't a view of the planet but the result of some projection is a result of a close view of earth with a very large FOV. As it, it's very misleading. - Blieusong (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Large FOV? To simulate the distance the Suomi NPP satellite is from earth, hold a ball that is 10 inches (25 centimeters) in diameter about 5/8ths (1 1/2 centimeters) from your face. That is how far Suomi NPP is away from the earth, and that should give a good example how large the FOV that the VIIRS instrument (the instrument that took the picture(s)) has (Link for verification). According to NASA, the pictures that compose the main picture, were taken over 6 orbits of the satellite going around the earth. There is no "very large FOV" due to the fact that the whole picture wasn't taken at once, but is actually composed of many pictures. Dusty777 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral per Blieusong and Dusty 777. Took me a little to see what you were talking about, but you'r right, it does make it look like North America takes up over half the earth. Clegs (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Look this over again later, but for now the explanation is enough for me to change to Neutral. Clegs (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, but could you please not use my comments as a reason to oppose this particular nomination? Don't want to confuse people since i am the nominator =D. Dusty777 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Re: Perspective. This image is totally accurate in its representation of the size of North America, and you can test it at home:

Find a globe, shut one eye, and hold it about 6 inches from your face while looking at North America.

Open Google Earth, zoom in so the globe completely fills the window, spin it to find North America.

This is the view you would see of the Earth if you were ~7000km up and looking at the planet with the naked eye or a typical normal-zoom camera. - Zephyris _Talk 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Info The perspective is explained quite clearly on the description page (perhaps some of this information should be included in the caption?): This view results from a height of the satellite which is about 826 km above the surface of the Earth. Because of such a low orbit not whole hemisphere is visible, and horizon is in a distance of only about 3300 km while the radius of our planet is 6371 km. The diameter of horizon seen from such a height is about 125 deg. Fallingmasonry (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Image appears to meet all the FP criteria. —Eustress ^talk 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The notion that the proportions are wrong appear to have been dispelled. The closer view may be a tad Americentric, but I don't believe that disqualifies it from FP status. God Emperor^Talk 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The view is explained well enough... the photographic analogy of a mercator projection. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see the EV. This image isn't even mentioned in the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The entire article is about Blue Marbles and this is one of them and arguably the best. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Coriandrum Sativum flowers

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2012 at 19:02:12 (UTC)

Original – Coriander flowers

Reason

The flower has a 'wow' effect. High clarity image of coriander flower. Adds significant value to the below mentioned article

Articles in which this image appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriander and another 15 wiki pages

FP category for this image

Plants/Flowers

Creator

H. Zell

• Support as nominator --Balaji (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm afraid it's a bit low on the resolution, compression artifacts, unsharp, and fringing on the petals. ZooFari (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose essentially per ZooFari. Fair amount of noise on central subject, whatever the cause. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and for an over zealous use of the shadow highlight too. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose quality is just not there. Noise, low res, artifacting. Suggest reshooting using a nicer camera, and then it might have a chance. Clegs (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Deutsche Bank Twin Towers

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 12:15:47 (UTC)

Original – The two Deutsche Bank 155-metre skyscrapers in Frankfurt am Main have become a symbol of Germany as a financial centre. The towers have been nicknamed Soll und Haben (Debit and Credit). Originally intended to be a Hyatt hotel, the buildings were acquired by Deutsche Bank during construction, which was completed in 1984.

Reason

Compelling view of iconic skyscrapers. Also of good resolution, fair quality, and well-exposed, considering how tricky that highly reflective glass would probably be.

Articles in which this image appears

Deutsche Bank Twin Towers, Deutsche Bank, List of tallest buildings in the European Union, 1984 in architecture

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Jürgen Matern

• Support as nominator —With appropriate thanks to the Turkish WP FPC project for the hint! Julia\^talk 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Could a building be more phallic? ;) Nicely taken though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support nice reflections. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be better to have a shot from the ground? It's difficult to separate the building from the rest of the background --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• It might work for the towers, but shots from the ground would not be able to sufficiently include the rather unusual bases of the buildings, which is an essential part of the EV. Julia\^talk 15:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. upstateNYer 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Diliff, Julia. upstateNYer 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support well done. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Julia, nice work and good EV.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support clear large image of a notable subject. Pine^talk 10:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very impressive. Dusty777 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Extra999 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 12:07:19 (UTC)

Original – Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, from the early 1500s.

Reason

High resolution, EV is through the roof (famous artist and one of the world's most famous paintings)

Articles in which this image appears

Mona Lisa and 20 more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci, digitized by Center for Research and Restoration of Museums of France and retouched by Dcoetzee

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per reasons mentioned by nom. - Blieusong (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Resolution and EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Great, the resolution is very remarkable in addition to EV. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Another obvious support --Guerillero | My Talk 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Extra999 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominations older than 9 days — to be closed

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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

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 February 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:
   • Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
   • Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
   • Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
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.

   Don't forget to update the count too.

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/Image name}} to the top of the section.
10. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the February archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
11. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Nominations for delisting

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. 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 fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it can be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. Note, however, 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. 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. Use the tool below to nominate for delisting. Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Delist closing procedure

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. Decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures.
5. 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.
6. 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

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 days following closure and subsequently be removed.

Temple Square

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 01:16:59 (UTC)

Original – Temple Square, Salt Lake City, 1899

Reason

Clean photochrom with good quality and high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Temple Square

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

William Henry Jackson; Retouched by User:Tom dl

• Support as nominator --  ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Broken source link. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Updated, Thanks.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Wow, I would have thought it was a painting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that a photochrom is essentially a manually colored photo, so it's not so dissimilar from a painting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support As Crisco said, I would have thought it was a painting. Excellent quality! Dusty777 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very nice, def EV too. —Eustress ^talk 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support upstateNYer 16:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose has compression artifacts, especially visible in the sky. Pine^talk 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Doubtful given file size. I see a bit of noise, but no artefacts. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There were some marks in the sky, not artifacts for sure. how is it now?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe noise is the better word. Whatever it is, it still doesn't look quite right. I may be being too picky given the age of this photo. Perhaps what I'm seeing is in the original, so I'll change my vote to neutral. Pine^talk 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support – like it. Nikthestoned 14:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Temple Square, Salt Lake City, 1899 retouched.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Murugan by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 18:29:02 (UTC)

Original – The Hindu god of war Murugan is seated on his vehicle, the peacock with his wives Valli and Deivayanai. A signed painting by the Indian artist Raja Ravi Varma (1848 - 1906), who was known for his depictions of Hindu deities and other mythological subjects.

Brightened Edit 1.

Reason

Featured picture at Commons and well illustrates the iconography of Murugan and painting style of Raja Ravi Varma

Articles in which this image appears

Murugan, Valli, Deivayanai, Kaumaram, Peafowl, Shashthi, Vahana, Arumuka Navalar

FP category for this image

Artwork/paintings

Creator

Raja Ravi Varma

• Support as nominator --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Striking portrayal of a deity, good EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Perhaps it needs brightening a little. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Is this an original crop (because the sides appear to be cut-off when it comes to feathers)? Brandmeister t 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment well about the crop thingy the painting is like that.between can i support it's nomination since i was the one who uploaded it on commons.also i want to know whether the name can be changed to its proper title which is Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami I actually uploaded this over an older version of the painting.Pernoctator (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, as an uploader, you can support. As for changing the name, you'd have to request that on Commons. See commons:Commons:File renaming. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The crop question was also raised on Commons, but the image is like that. As for the name, IMO the current name is descriptive as well as the common name [2][3]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Is there some rule that prefers the common name over the proper title?.i believe some of varma's paintings were untitled and different people have given different names to it.for example the lady givings alms painting is also known as mandodari.now how would you decide which name is common. Pernoctator (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No. There is no rule. The policy only says "Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen", which the current title fulfils. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

so whats wrong with Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami by Raja Ravi Varma.the term murugan is very regional.i think the pan indian term is kartikeya (which is also used by tamils).i had raied this issue on the article of the hindu deity whose painting this is.even western scholars mostly refer to him as kartikeya.some use skanda and kumara too. Pernoctator (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with "Shri Shanmukha Subramania Swami", but I just saying the current title is correct too.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

say yes or no.otherwise i won't go ahead.also i would like comments on Murugan title being changed to kartikeya.i have raised the issue on the talk page.Pernoctator (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support easily one of varma's best.resolution is good.Pernoctator (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It seems that the image is half. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're trying to say what I think you are - that the image has been cropped, then that has already been explained (no, it has not been cropped, the original composition is just this way). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I read the above comments, but I still think that's not the original composition. All of the paintings which have been showed in the two above links have a similar dimensions and it seems that their dimensions are predefined (both horizontal and vertical). They are a little promotional websites, I will be support if I see a RS coverage which proves that this is the original size. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • More links with same image [4], Christies (a similar lithograph version), The South Asian Times p.34, Davis Museum and Cultural Center, Wellesley College. This is not the first image where Raja Ravi Varma cuts off the bird's sides. His Vishnu File:Raja Ravi Varma, Lord Garuda.jpg is also similar. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - According to Redtigerxyz's references, if it really is its original size, it's proper to be featured with its quality and EV. Agreed with Harrison, I liked this version which is brighter. ●Mehran ^Debate● 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Murugan by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody expressed any preference for the edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Commando parachutiste de l'air n°10

Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:07:11 (UTC)

File:GRAPPECPA10.JPG

Original – CPA 10 from a Puma using Helicopter Rope Suspension Technique

Reason

Good, clear composition; good contrast; illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.

Articles in which this image appears

Special Patrol Insertion/Extraction, Helicopter Rope Suspension Technique, Commandement des Opérations Spéciales

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Commons User:Kajaibai

• Support as nominator --Mais oui! (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor image quality - small, noisy, highly compressed. But agree with nom that this would indeed be excellent if the image quality was up to scratch. FWIW, given the uploader's edit history, I wonder that this isn't potentially a copyvio anyway. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is extremely noisy, and it is quite small. It barely fits the size requirements. The underside of the helicopter is also pretty dark. On the positive side, the composition and scene are nice, but that's about it.--Nanoman657 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Nikthestoned 16:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I really love the composition and the colours, but the technical qualities really aren't up to scratch. If you see another image that catches your attention, feel free to come back and nominate that! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy close Only a photo of historical value, where a photo of better quality would be unobtainable, would ever get away with such a high amount of noise and low resolution. God Emperor^Talk 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment And also I would argue that this doesn't meet the minimum size requirements. Panoramas must be substantially larger than 1000px on the long edge to ensure sufficient detail can be seen. This is effectively a vertical panorama, so the same logic should apply. God Emperor^Talk 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not promoted - image has been deleted as apparent copyvio. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lasseter Highway

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 05:50:44 (UTC)

Original – The Lasseter Highway in Australia's Northern Territory, looking east toward Erldunda

Reason

Good quality with nice colours. Although minimalist, it has EV as it is representative of large swathes of Australia's Northern Territory. As far as I can tell, our nearest FP is over 1000 km away. Similarly we do not have any FP Landscapes that are anything like this.

Articles in which this image appears

Lasseter Highway, Northern Territory, Perspective (visual)

FP category for this image

Landscapes

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's an alright picture. But, only the foreground is in focus, it has very heavy compression artifacts throughout the rest of the picture, and the sharpness needs adjustment. The caption could be improved also Dusty777 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Please can you explain what you mean by very heavy artifacts, and where you see them? Had your download completed? I do not expect any compression artifacts, because both times it was saved from RAW at JPG-100%. Nor can I see any artifacts. Caption improved. I'll consider sharpening once I understand what you meant by "very heavy compression artifacts". --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see any artifacting either. --jjron (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• What he's seeing, (also the OOF mentioned below) is the result of heat waves. Clegs (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the compression artifacts i thought i saw, was due to the rocks in the foreground and the asphalt on the road giving the appearance of artifacts (if you look close enough, you should see what i mean). Dusty777 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not enough of the scene is in focus God Emperor^Talk 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Composition leaves much to be desired sadly. I love scenes like this, so I kinda wish this were executed better. Essentially, the image doesn't flow, or carry the eye well. My eye is first drawn to the barren and slightly washed-out horizon, which, in a setting like this, is very disconcerting: it can appear tilted due to the slightest screen distortion, and if the horizon appears tilted, it really taints the shot. As for the highway, it simply enters the frame at an arbitrary vertical point and slices the shot with no apparent deliberateness. The flow that does exist (which is inherent with any road picture) brings the eye to another arbitrary and poorly placed point at the far top-right. Overall, I don't feel like I'm in the setting as I should for an excellent highway photo; instead I'm certain at once that I'm looking at a screen. I'm happy to see it's a QI over at commons, though, as it's definitely interesting and covers a poorly illustrated area. Juliancolton (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Where's the road? I mean, I see it, but it's not prominent enough in a picture supposed to illustrate the road. Opposing on composition grounds. --Rschen7754 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually like the composition as an Abstract image, but it doesn't help the EV - the subject appears to be the tire tracks in the foreground. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I've read through the opposes, but still think that the picture could be an FP. It's bold and seems at first to convey almost surreal natural beauty, but then it's evident that humankind has left its heavy footprint (or tire tracks) on a road it's built across the plain. I'd actually like to see this on our Main Page. dci | TALK 04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Painting watercolors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 11:47:35 (UTC)

Original – A watercolor painter working in Italy.

Reason

It's hard to imagine a more comprehensive and aesthetically pleasing depiction of this subject. It was promoted on Commons as early as 2007 and had rather enthusiastic support.

Articles in which this image appears

Watercolor painting

FP category for this image

Culture and lifestyle and/or Artwork/Others

Creator

Dongio

• Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful —Eustress ^talk 15:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. I like how the lighting brings out the painting, but the unnecessarily cropped of tip of the canvas bothers me a bit. Would have been even more awesome if the "tools" were shown as well. --Dschwen 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. This picture is only telling half the story. God Emperor^Talk 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Jujutacular (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Very nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry to ruin the party, but the technicals are pretty poor (particularly blown highlights on the page). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The important details are all present in good quality, and without the play of shadow and highlight, you wouldn't get the nice correspondence between subject and depiction that is possible here (subject = the view through the window). Also, white paper is designed for high reflectiveness. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Technically a solid image, but for this to have full EV, I think that a set of the watercolor paint (like this) needs to be included in the image. Spencer^T♦C 02:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The natural light on the fresh paint makes the water-based nature of the medium conspicuous. I think the EV lies mainly there and a set of paints is superfluous to that and unnecessary. That could well enough be shown in a separate image, such as this one. Julia\^talk 15:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Extra999 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Dolceacqua43 - Artista locale mentre dipinge un acquarello.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mount Everest from the air

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 13:52:31 (UTC)

Original – The view of Mount Everest, Lhotse, and surrounding mountains from a Druk Air flight. The plane is south of Everest, therefore viewing the south face of Lhotse and Everest.

Edit 1 – Tilt adjusted per comments

Edit 2 - Tilt, sRGB converted, red and green rescued, more width preserved, annotation transferred.

Reason

A striking view of Mount Everest and another of the other highest peaks in the world, Lhotse, giving a good idea of the topography around it for extra EV

Articles in which this image appears

List of highest mountains, Mount Everest, and one more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Shrimpo1967 from Flickr. Edited by Durova

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Which direction are we facing? An indication in the caption (e.g., south face of Mount Everest) or something like that would be helpful. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• South of the mountains, facing north (so south face of Lhotse and Everest, south-east face of Nuptse) [5] Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the image on Commons is annotated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I prefer Edit 1. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. High value picture. Looks like there is a slight CCW tilt to it (from the cloudline/horizon). --Dschwen 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support One of the tilt corrected ones. Per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC
• Comment Can I ask all of you to specify whether you prefer the original original or the fixed version currently uploaded over the top? Commons is complaining again, and the fix may have to be uploaded separately... Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Probably better to upload separately. They both look okay to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support Needs an improved caption. Dusty777 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• In-article or in nomination? If in-nomination, fixed. If in-article, soon to be fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Support In-nomination. Dusty777 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support, though agree with Dschwen that it may be slightly tilted. --jjron (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Support consensus tilt-corrected version. --jjron (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- Tilt adjusted version added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Edit-1 The correction greatly improved the picture. Dschwen made a good call on that. Dusty777 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Edit-1. Nice edit. —Eustress ^talk 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support either edit Can't tell a difference between the edits, but they are both better than the original. Very good picture. Clegs (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support any edit EV in List of highest mountains.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support any edit. Wonderful picture with high EV. - Darwinek (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Buried pretty far down in the article. Makes me wonder if the EV is really exceptional. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I put its use in List of highest mountains first for EV, as it shows two of the mountains. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw that, but I considered that usage pretty weak. Nobody else minds the EV, though, so forget I said anything. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support any edit --Guerillero | My Talk 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support edit 2 --Extra999 (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support any edit prefer edit 2. Jujutacular (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2 PLW edit.jpg --Julia\^talk 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Preferences (where stated) fell to edit 2 after its addition. Julia\^talk 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually see two supports specifically for Edit 1, one preference for Edit 1, one support for Edit 2, and one preference for Edit 2. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Thomas More

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 22:52:17 (UTC)

Portrait of Thomas More

Reason

The current FP comes from the the Yorck Project, which is notorious for its bad reproductions, it should be replaced by this Google Art Project file which is superior in both colour correctness and size.

Articles this image appears in

several

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sir Thomas More

Nominator

P. S. Burton (talk)

• Delist — P. S. Burton (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Hans Holbein d. J. 065.jpg
• Delist, though I'd like the mentioned replacement to go through FPC process independent of this delist nom. Nikthestoned 15:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delist as above. I assume you intend to nominate the other, or was this meant to be a delist/replace nomination? J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delist and Replace with the Google art file. Clegs (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delist and replace. Pine^talk 10:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Jujutacular (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

M82 galaxy set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 10:34:43 (UTC)

Original – Messier 82 (also known as NGC 3034, Cigar Galaxy or NM82) is the prototype nearby starburst galaxy about 12 million light-years away in the constellation Ursa Major. The starburst galaxy is five times as bright as the whole Milky Way and one hundred times as bright as our galaxy's center. This image is shown in invisible infrared and X-ray spectrums: Spitzer photographed it in infrared, which shows dust emission, and Chandra photographed it in X-ray (showing mostly synchrotron emissions from fast electrons). The X-ray emission is shown in the blue parts.(from article)

ALT – This mosaic image is the sharpest wide-angle view ever obtained of M82.

Reason

Both are of high quality and very striking. The previous nomination was... well, it needs to be read to be understood. Suffice it to say I think a set nomination would work better, although I prefer the true colour image if we must pick only one. This nomination was made after a comment by Extra on my talk page.

Articles in which this image appears

Both together on Messier 82. Individually on another 7 articles.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out

Creator

NASA

• Support both as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as sub-nominator really striking --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support the alt, as that's the one that is the lead image, and has been for some time. However, nominating the images together was perhaps not the best idea- it was that which led to the clusterfuck last time. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, the old nom was a little FUBAR... I like both. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Call me ignorant, but in the grand scheme of things this is just another pretty NASA shot like many others we have seen on this page. I'd rather see something new and unique getting the FP badge here. --Dschwen 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon? But how else would one represent this galaxy? Would you oppose all bird pictures because "we have enough birds"? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Really, you won't get across such space pics of such quality anywhere, as you seemed to take it. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is certainly an issue here, but the answer would be to encourage alternative kinds of images, not hold back the usual. If it was found, for comparison, that proportionally far fewer women were getting into universities, I'm sure plenty of people would support measures to support and encourage women who are applying; I doubt many would support turning down men who would otherwise have been offered a place. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Actually that is exactly what is happening on the job market, if certain quotas have to be met. --Dschwen 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• But there is no limit to the no of FPs we can have --Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quite; that's why I thought that university admissions was a more apt comparison than jobs. J Milburn (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dschwen's opposition is poorly informed. Just because objects are in space does not mean they have EV for the same reason. The only FPs that have marginally overlapping EV with this image are the 10-odd galaxy pictures. However, none of these illustrates a starburst galaxy (except the obviously anomalous Antenna galaxies). M82's status as the prototype for this important galaxy class gives it strong and unique EV. As Crisco says, Dschwen is equating eagles and ostriches. Fallingmasonry (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support It should be made more prominent in the caption the bits of the spectrum that these images are from though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Alt, Neutral on Original (why are they both labeled "Original"?) For the 1st image, I think the EV would be better if the IR and XRay images weren't composited, but presented as a pair. Fallingmasonry (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Changed Original (#2) to ALT Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:M82 HST ACS 2006-14-a-large web.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Only "alt" had enough support. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

USS Arizona (BB-39)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 01:15:55 (UTC)

Original – USS Arizona (BB-39), Port Bow, before being modernized at Norfolk Naval Shipyard between 4 May 1929 and January 1930 ^{see glossary}

Reason

High EV and good quality.

Articles in which this image appears

USS Arizona (BB-39)

FP category for this image

Vehicles/Water

Creator

Unknown

• Support as nominator --  ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support; EV ●Mehran ^Debate● 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support High EV, nice and sharp, good illustration of probably the most famous battleship in the world. Clegs (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely not? What of the Bismarck, Hood or Yamato? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The image caption says the ship is underway, yet I see no bow wave, no wake, etc. Rather, there seems to be a mooring or anchor line from the left bow. Does anyone else concur? Should we change the caption? Clegs (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Great picture, but the caption needs some improvement (E.G. Where is the ship going? Where did it come from? Whats it doing?). I agree with Clegs. There is no disturbance in the water in the area around the ship, so it doesn't appear to be moving. Dusty777 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support the EV is high but I agree with Clegs --Guerillero | My Talk 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Underway, not making way; underway should not be confused with making way, see this, also this article explains that a vessel can be underway with no way on (i.e., not moving), this is the original caption provided by NARA and I assume it is correct. however, the caption's date is probably wrong as suggested by someone here, the ship was modernised in 1930, but in the image she has cage masts instead of tripod masts, the ones you can see here and here.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see comment by User:Sturmvogel 66 at file's talk page.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sturm also concers on the file's talk page that the ship is anchored and not underway.

I understand the difference, however, she appears to have an anchor line or mooring line coming from her left bow. According to your link, she would then not be considered 'under way'. Clegs (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sturm is right on that. I don't think there's any way to tell where the photo is taken unless we find a distinguishing feature that was only on the ship for a very short period of time, which we could then link with a place. Also, OOC, what do you people of adding back some of the sky and water that was cropped from the top and bottom? Right now it seems too narrow to me (I was the one who originally cropped it, but now I'm rethinking the crop) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the crop the way it is. It's very aesthetically balanced. Clegs (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I too prefer this crop, it is better for the article and has better EV than original image.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I've corrected the file description. should I rename it and remove the date from file name?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway - NARA - 5900075 - 1930.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamelan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 00:06:29 (UTC)

A man playing gamelan at the Indonesian embassy in Australia

Reason

This really kills me (I think we need more Indonesia-related FPs), but the image has been replaced by other, more encyclopedic images and is not used anymore. The resolution is also on the low side.

Articles this image appears in

N/A

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Playing gamelan

Nominator

Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question. I don't know much about this topic, and expect you are far better informed, so I'll ask: is there really no place or no use for this in the Gamelan article anymore? I can't find when it was removed, but I do note that the Gamelan article is riddled with vandalism. --jjron (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Here's the unexplained removal --jjron (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Would it have a place in Gamelan gender wayang? --jjron (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'd say this should be re-added to the Gamelan article. (And as such I vote for Keep, even if I have to put it back in myself!) The image is indeed *just* on the right side of the resolution guideline, but I don't really feel it hurts it (as much as, say, the blurry hammer!). Nikthestoned

• As noted in the original nomination by the only oppose voter, gamelan is not something one plays alone. It is a set, including gongs, instruments like xylophones, and other instruments which sadly I forget the name of. Any pictures showing only a single player have lower EV than set pictures. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but this image appears to be of a far higher quality than those remaining. Could they not both be in place? Maybe in the "Influence on Western music" section, what with it being in Australia. (Tenuous connection there, I realise!) Nikthestoned 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Should've put @jjron in front of that...
  @jjron: Without knowing if there was a wayang performance, no. I've put it in Gendér though, as that is the instrument he is playing.

@Nik: Theoretically I could get better pictures, if I had the time to go down to the sultan's palace (lighting would be an issue though). I think having the image in gendér is good, but I'm not sure if the EV is high enough, especially with the round mallet so motion blurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of Indonesia-related FPs (and content in general) I'd say this still meets the EV in this area (given it's now in use)... As in, the value is higher if the images subject is barely represented, right? Nikthestoned 09:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Better than none, yes. If there is such a thing as a weak delist, that's where I am now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It's certainly well above resolution requirements and as mentioned above we don't many (if any) other Indonesian FPs and to me the playing of the particular instrument would meet EV requirements --Fir0002 04:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Tachara, Persepolis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 00:27:58 (UTC)

Original – Persepolis was the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550-330 BCE).UNESCO declared the citadel of Perspolis a World Heritage Site in 1979. Tachara palace which was built under Darius I, and the Imperial treasury which was started by Darius in 510 BC and finished by Xerxes in 480 BC.

Reason

High resolution, Ancient palace, Featured in Persian Wiki

Articles in which this image appears

Persepolis

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Mamad

• Support as nominator --Mamad ^TALK 00:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it me or does the tilt seem off a little? Spencer^T♦C 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not you. At least I think I know what you are saying. Also, the angle is almost straight-on, but just not quite. Pteronura brasiliensis 02:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support; Proper resolution, agreeable angle, and extremely encyclopedic and historical notability. It's a scarce photo of this ancient place and its environment is ideal enough to make it a clear one. I don't know what "tilt" is in your mind! May you explain a little more? ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glossary Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I know the meaning of "tilt" my friend, I meant why did you say that? Because I couldn't find it. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I was thinking the diagonal upwards shooting of the photo and the fact that it is not quite straight on. Pteronura brasiliensis 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're right. But as I said above, this is a scarce photo of this area. ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Good quality, EV--آرش (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Purple fringing in parts of the right half of the image. In addition, the heavy shadows on the right side obscure the detail. Spencer^T♦C 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support beautiful image Ram!n (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the user's fourth edit; all 4 of user's edits have been within the past 3 days Spencer^T♦C 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per above + fishy supports from other users --Muhammad(talk) 05:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm a little worry about this matter that the others think that there exists a canvassing because of attendance of some Iranian users. I don't know about the others, but I saw this page quite randomly, anyway you can ignore my vote if you feel it's a kind of Canvass. Regards ●Mehran ^Debate● 08:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support exact frame, historical and ancient photo, beautiful symmetry-like picture, acceptable resolution, nice color and synchronous background, narrator of interior palace of Persepolis, essential and deserving for Wiki Pedia! Alborzagros (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Poor framing, geometric distortion, poor image quality. I don't like the national canvassing either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Are the metal bars on the left side a permanent feature, or did there happen to be restoration work going on at the time the picture happened to be taken? I hasten to point out that we would love, love, love to have a featured-picture-quality picture of this monument, but this picture isn't it. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

the metal are bars on the left side is permanent! Mamad ^TALK —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

• Comment:I don't want to persuade, but the top region is in restricted area and taking photo of there is not so easy, at least I didn't see a proper image of this place before, and that's why I said it's scarce! ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. a little too tight of a crop and a bit out of whack. --Dschwen 15:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The upward shooting angle means there's too much sky in the frame and not enough palace. In particular, we can't see the lower bits of the stuff further to the back. God Emperor^Talk 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just doesn't grab me the way an FP should. Clegs (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Crop is way too tight. Can't compare the size or the structures relation to the surrounding area. That kills the pictures appeal. Dusty777 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 08:56:51 (UTC)

Original – Raphael's portrait of his friend, the humanist Baldassare Castiglione.

Reason

High resolution and EV; notable artist and notable work. Deceptively simple looking, yet quite impressive.

Articles in which this image appears

Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, Baldassare Castiglione, and several others

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Raphael

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support although the full res image was broken according to Firefox when I tried to view it. At 1400x1742, it looks great. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the full size was broken for me, too. This should be addressed before we promote it, probably. Clegs (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Viewing works fine in both the flash-based and javascript-based large image viewers, which satisfies me. The resolution and image quality are crazy cool. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Viewing works for me too (Firefox on Windows XP) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ●Mehran ^Debate● 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Wow at resolution and quality. Julia\^talk 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Holy Freaking Snapdragons! aka Support. Don't think I've ever seen an image this high-res on FPC before. Excellent digitisation! Clegs (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support simply for the resolution wowie.Pernoctator (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic resolution and otherwise a classic portrait with high encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Balthazar Castiglione, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mooncake

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 14:12:13 (UTC)

Original – A mooncake, one of the traditional Chinese bakery products.

Edit 1 - smoother selection edges, remade from original.

Original background

Reason

An adequate photo, taken at fortunate angle.

Articles in which this image appears

Mooncake

FP category for this image

Food and drink

Creator

Lybil BER

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 14:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Technical aspects: Blown highlights on the cake, heavily visible. Aesthetic aspects: Looks poor on a plain white background, a little context would be better. Encyclopedic aspects: I'd prefer something at least hinting at how it is consumed (those don't quite look like the mooncakes available here, but then Mrs. Crisco bought green ones...) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's nian gao she bought... duh Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is an original background, but 5 out of 9 current food and drink FPs have similar neutral background and the cake is not something sophisticated to show how it's consumed :) Brandmeister t 21:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support edit 1 Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose All Limited depth of field. Original per Crisco. PLW's edit has plate marks and the bottom left of the plate still visible. I'd be most happy with the original version over either of these edits. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added Brandmeister t 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per JJ. Pteronura brasiliensis 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, food FPC are very hard to pass. The food has to be literally perfect. Any slight imperfection in the food will give an oppose. Here, the background is a bit hazy at the edges, and there are minor blemishes on the mooncake: i.e the creases/cuts/whatever at the lower right of the mooncake--Nanoman657 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A MG PA

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 15:54:29 (UTC)

Original – A MG PA, only produced from 1934-35, and only 2000 were made.

Reason

Beautiful picture of a rare type of car, nice detail.

Articles in which this image appears

MG P-type, Düsseldorfer_Automobil-_und_Motorsport-Club_05

FP category for this image

Land Vehicles

Creator

Spurzem

• Support as nominator --Pteronura brasiliensis 15:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support very sharp, no compression artifacts, and high EV --Guerillero | My Talk 17:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support -- There's something I can't put my finger on that's bothering me when I look at the image. Very nice indeed, but something's nagging me... could it be lighting on the door? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The background? And FWIW the description on the image page needs to Englishfied for here. --jjron (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That is part of it, yes. I don't know if these models are taken to outdoor shows though, so I wasn't going to press on that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • This car was a participant of the Oldtimer Festival 2008. Regards --Pitlane02 talk 09:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Translation is done. I've tried to translate the description and added the coordination. Regards --Pitlane02 talk 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment This is outside, just on a cloudy day. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, cloudy. That might be part of it (as I noted above, it is a little dark on the doors). Not sure whether to go full support or stay partial. I'll consider Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Cloudy? Those are pretty strong shadows for a cloudy day. (However, on that, perhaps it's the minor backlighting, with the sun being slightly to the rear of the car?) --jjron (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think so. However, I don't know how you could get that lighted edge like that unless the whole ceiling was all one big light. Which, you know, it technically couldn't be. Unless you tried very hard. Pteronura brasiliensis 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I think wires may have been crossed somewhere. As you said earlier this is outside, however it's clearly not cloudy (or not very cloudy) and is lit by the sun from behind; don't know what you're talking about re ceilings and lights. My parenthetical statement above was directed at Crisco and his uncertain problem with the image. --jjron (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I like the silence of this moment in the historic paddock of the Nürburgring. --Pitlane02 talk 09:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Byggxx (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Decent illustration of the car but not featurable. The very unappealing background is in focus, and if the crop were not so tight and it had better composition, its significance as part of the Nürburgring complex might make it acceptable, but as it is it's just ugly metal. It's clearly possible to get images of these cars during races on the track (commons:Category:Oldtimer Festival Nürburgring). Julia\^talk 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support — M 93 (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unattractive background is too much of a detraction; nothing places this at the Nürburgring. Not especially sharp or detailed for a car image. Backlighting creating frontal shadows is not ideal as per above discussion. The high number of new voters tipped me off that some somewhat suspicious interwiki canvassing appears to have taken place. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Background are two historic roller blinds of garages in the old paddock at Nürburgring. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If only people used [[:File:Image.jpg]] ;) --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Julia --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- 91.67.198.24 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC) a not valid voting = anonymous. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support —I like the picture.--Genossegerd (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Erika39 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Unappealing background. Such a small change and it could be so much better. Jujutacular (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per jjron --Leviathan1983 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per jjron. Clegs (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Background is indeed distracting. —Eustress ^talk 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• support. It is a wonderful classic car in front of the historic paddock garages of Nürburgring. Therefore I took this photo. I wonder that the authentic background should be unappealing or distracting. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• support -- Well excuted with just enough pop. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• 7 O, 11.5 S -> no 2/3 majority. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ich frage mich, wie sich die englischen Kritiker ein gutes Foto von einem MG vorstellen oder was ihnen an dem “abgeschmetterten” Bild nicht gefällt. Einer meinte “it could be much better”. But what should be much better? (Please excuse me that I can not say all this exactly in English.) -- Spurzem (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Girls' Generation

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 10:33:49 (UTC)

Original – Korean pop girl group Girls' Generation: (left to right) Kim Tae-yeon, Kim Hyo-yeon, Seo Joo-hyun, Choi Soo-young, Im Yoona, Jessica Jung, Tiffany Hwang, Sunny Lee, and Kwon Yuri

Reason

High EV (currently lede picture in band's article) and gives fairly equal prominence to each member. Not blatantly advertorial, although admittedly from an advertising campaign. Personally, I like the lighting and the posing is decent.

Articles in which this image appears

Girl's Generation, Girl group

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

LG (via flickr)

• Support as co-nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator —Eustress ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support It would be better to identify the members. I found this source, but matching appeared hard for me :) Brandmeister t 11:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that my 11-year-old students could do a better job at that than either of us. On it anyway. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ID done, cap updated —Eustress ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. As per my comments at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girls' Generation I agree the band members need to be identified. I thought that was why the nomination of this was being delayed in the first place. Can we suspend until that happens? --jjron (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put requests in at two different places, and am liable to bring this to a lesson on Thursday (I wasn't kidding about my students knowing better than me about this). I've tentatively id'd two. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely there should be some pundits out there... Brandmeister t 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively identified using these three pages. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth just asking two or three of the article regulars on their talkpages? A few have edited multiple times in the last couple of weeks, so are active and perhaps know the band well. A consensus of opinions would also be good. --jjron (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sent two messages. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Crisco jumped the gun. I was assuaging the ID and English-language issues for the file name on Commons -- both of which are now resolved. I've updated the image file name and the image caption. —Eustress ^talk 23:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support now assuming correct IDs. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Color needs to be fixed too.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What colour issues do you see? On this web-cafe monitor and mine at home, the colours look okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel it's too red.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel its too red? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this effect was made intentionally by the photographer, as the colours become gradually stronger the more your eyes move to the left.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it was quite intentional too, and I don't find it too strong or a problem. Product photography has a bit more liberty when it comes to artistic expression. As has been argued before, it's this artistic expression of the 'product' that is actually part of the EV in my opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nominators. High-quality and very nice EV as the lead photo. Thanks to Eustress for fixing various word-related issues. Fallingmasonry (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I like this photograph--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Why local file is downsampled?!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Don't know how it ended up like that; perhaps Eutress' internet is like my satellite modem - compresses things of its own accord. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure what happened on my end. —Eustress ^talk 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's high quality and a good example of the kitschy Korean pop style. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Great picture, and rare that we get a free image of any contemporary musical artist. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Starry Night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 08:53:46 (UTC)

Original – The Starry Night, an 1889 painting by Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh. It measures 73.7 cm × 92.1 cm (29 in × 36¼ in)

Reason

Easily one of Van Gogh's most recognizable works, this faithful reproduction from the Google Art Project is of high resolution and good quality. EV for both the painting and the artist is through the roof.

Articles in which this image appears

The Starry Night, Google Art Project, and several others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Vincent van Gogh

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 10:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support requires no questions or thought --Guerillero | My Talk 15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Resolution is a bit borderline though. Really would like to see some of the smaller bacteria as well. God Emperor^Talk 16:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wow! 16.4 um/px at the original Google Art resolution... That is pretty impressive! - Zephyris _Talk 19:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Great quality; one of his most definitive works and thus strong EV. Spencer^T♦C 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding quality reproduction of what I think is the greatest painting of all time. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Now fixed in the Zoom Viewer. --Dschwen 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I notice this image has evidence of wear on the edges and is pretty dim. The rendition here, however, shows the brush strokes much better and has been cleaned up on the edges. Is the image proposed here somehow preferred to the one I've linked to (perhaps for the sake of historicity?). I much better prefer to enhanced version I've linked to. —Eustress ^talk 01:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unable to open the link (dunno why), I can't know for sure. But since it comes from a wallpaper website, the file there may have been retouched before publication. As for a reason to use this one... it's pretty much guaranteed to be an accurate representation of the painting as it was at the time of digitization, and the resolution is much better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Nope! 1280x800 and it has substantial parts cropped off. You cannot be serious. Sorry, but please keep in mind that we should choose encyclopedic value and authenticity over sexed-up flickerized saturation fests any time. --Dschwen 14:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Fun fact - my computer used an additional 8.35 GB of ram when I opened this. The quality is amazing. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. As we discussed previously (see Adam Cuerden's vote and my response), Google has cut off a miniscule sliver of the painting that is visible in its current frame (there's no way to know whether VG intended that sliver to be visible or not). Chick Bowen 01:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but when I can't view this image, I can't in good conscience vote for it. Wikipedia needs to be accessible for all, not just for geeks who know how to download a huge image. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Odd, on Firefox 10 on Windows 7 starter edition (and a pretty bad connection), I can still view it using the large image viewer tools. They aren't working for you? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • K, the 3rd time looking I found the tiny "Interactive large-image-viewer" link on the image page. Do we think that normal users will see this? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Although it's been discussed many times before, I agree that we should find a way to make it more intuitive. I asked at WT:FPC if we can apply a fix only on the English Wikipedia or if it must be everywhere, but no reply yet. BTW, is this still an oppose? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not my favorite "starry night", but still beautiful and of course top notch quality. Soon we won't need attending museums anymore. - Blieusong (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support my favourite Van Gogh.Pernoctator (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Van Gogh - Starry Night - Google Art Project.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Forest canopy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 00:56:19 (UTC)

Original – The canopy in Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre in the Malaysian Sabah District of North Borneo.

Reason

An image of a forest canopy which illustrates how the treetops pack closely together to capitalise on sunlight.

Articles in which this image appears

Canopy (biology)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants

Creator

God_Emperor

• Support as nominator --God Emperor^Talk 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This photo had been in the article canopy for 11 minutes before its nomination here. It's best to wait to see if it's stable in the article before nomination... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would put this on hold for 5 days. That is often enough time to see if the article writers support or reject the image --Guerillero | My Talk 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not counting edits related to the current FP candidate being added, the article has had 2 edits since the beginning of November. It's not an actively written article, so anything you put up will stay for an indefinite amount of time. Clegs (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest just waiting until the image has been in for a week before nominating - that is what the rules proclaim. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not really a fan of the image regardless of how secure it is in the article. It doesn't really show the canopy very well and is underexposed. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The image fails to show what the nominator stated in his intro, that it " illustrates how the treetops pack closely together to capitalise on sunlight". The different tree canopies are quite widely spaced. I know the effect he is alluding to, but this isn't it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose' I'd want an illustration of canopy to be a little denser than this. This is almost half blue sky.Clegs (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Good picture as it is but no real wow. How do we know this is a forest, for one thing? I know people who could go out and take this sort of image in their back yards. I sort of expect a picture of a forest canopy to look like, well, an actual canopy. Or to show us big, tapering tree trunks. Or needle-like crepuscular rays or slightly occulted sun peeking through. You get the idea. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Daniel Case. Pine^talk 10:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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