Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FPC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to current candidates

Skip to: Table of contents | Current candidates | To be closed | More input needed | Candidates for delisting | Recently closed | Suspended candidates
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

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

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
Shortcuts:

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:
Step 1: Evaluate

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

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?

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

Contents


To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review.


[edit] Current nominations

FPCs needing feedback
view · edit


[edit] Temple doorknob

Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2012 at 01:54:55 (UTC)

Original – A doorknob of the Salt Lake Temple, which bears an image of a beehive and carries the inscription, "Holiness to the Lord"
Reason
Beautiful pic of functional artwork crafted in the 19th century, rich in EV as an illustration of a significant landmark and of symbolism in religion
Articles in which this image appears
Salt Lake Temple, Temple (LDS Church), Beehive
FP category for this image
Places/Architecture or Other
Creator
SiLver sKY, from Flickr




[edit] File:Edinburgh Ale by Hill & Adamson c1844.png

Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 23:58:14 (UTC)

Original – Possibly the earliest photograph of people drinking beer, this salt print shows James Ballantine, George Bell and David Octavius Hill sharing a brew. Dates from circa 1844.
Reason
Saw this at commons. Interesting historical photograph with high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears
History of beer, salt print
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator
Hill & Adamson
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Suggest changing caption from "first photograph" to "earliest photograph". Also, is use of honorific "Dr" necessary? —Eustress talk 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Kremlin Clock chimes in 2012

Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 15:27:30 (UTC)

Kremlin Clock chimes in 2012.ogv
Original – The Kremlin Clock chimes in the New Year 2012
Reason
Very high definition video of the Kremlin Clock chiming; the EV for such a video on related articles is extremely high
Articles in which this image appears
Kremlin Clock, Striking clock
FP category for this image
link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
Creator
Presidential Press and Information Office
  • Support as nominator --Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support It would be more interesting to see the same one minute before midnight and trace the moving clockhand. Excellent otherwise. Brandmeister t 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Maureen O'Hara

Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 06:13:44 (UTC)

Original – Irish former film actress and singer Maureen O'Hara
Reason
Really fine photo of a Hollywood star
Articles in which this image appears
Maureen O'Hara
FP category for this image
People/Entertainment
Creator
Unknown (studio publicity still)
  • Support as nominator --—Eustress talk 06:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much airbrushing/photoshopping, or probably a combination. Her skin looks plastic, with her forehead in particular lacking any detail. The blacks are too heavy, again completely lacking any detail, and/or significantly artifacted (shadowy parts of hair at top and right side of her head, and even worse is her neck). And what on earth has happened to her right eye? That alone would disqualify it. --jjron (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, the whites are slightly washed out, but the flatness of the skin is likely largely due to this being a promotional shot. Per historical value, this is as high quality as you're going to get. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Inuit woman

Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 05:43:22 (UTC)

Original – An Inuit woman circa 1907, taken in Nome, Alaska.
Edit 1 – Suggestion for recovering shadow detail.
Edit 2 – Building on PLW2's edit, curves adjusted and some extraneous scratches removed
Reason
I was drawn to restore this image by the subject's eyes, which I felt piercing into my soul. Luckily the original TIF wasn't too badly damaged (not like Virginia Rappe's portrait which I gave up on), so the results were in my opinion spectacular. High resolution, good lighting... all around I think this is a good image.
Articles in which this image appears
Inuit women, Inuit culture, Inuit, and 5 more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional
Creator
Created by Lomen Bros., restored by Crisco 1492
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support edit 1 Creases/scratches should be cleaned and perhaps contrast adjusted a bit. Brandmeister t 16:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for now I love the photo (it has long been one of the rotating photos on my userpage!), but I don't know if her ethnicity can be positively identified based on the location of the photographer and her dress. (She is only described as "Eskimo" in the original caption.) I'd guess she is Inuit, but Nome at least today has a significant number of Yupik people and I think is close to the traditional location of Yupik populations as well. (See language map, page describing Nome Eskimo Community, Nome probation services page noting several Eskimo groups in the area.) I'd want someone with more knowledge to take a look at this so that we can be confident it is accurate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Clark Gable

Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2012 at 05:33:24 (UTC)

Original – American film actor Clark Gable, c. 1925
Reason
It's Clark Gable, and I think it meets the FP criteria
Articles in which this image appears
Clark Gable
FP category for this image
People/Entertainment
Creator
Unknown (studio publicity still)
  • Support as nominator --—Eustress talk 05:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment -- His body seems OOF. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Higher f-stop would have been better, but can't reshoot, and it's good enough. High EV. Clegs (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Slightly interesting choice of shadows, but not so obvious at larger sizes, and overall it's good. Source could be made clearer. --jjron (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Portrait of a Young Girl

Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 23:32:46 (UTC)

Original – Petrus Christus' Portrait of a Young Girl, c. 1470. The oil on oak portrait is traditionally believed to show a member of the Talbot family. It measures 29 cm x 22.5 cm.
Reason
High resolution, famous painting and good encyclopedic value
Articles in which this image appears
Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus, Berlin), Early Netherlandish painting, +2
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Petrus Christus, digitized by Google Art Project
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Glad they scanned this when they did... a few more years and they'll have to change the title to Paint Chips :) Still, good EV and a crisp scan. —Eustress talk 05:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Google Art rules. Brandmeister t 16:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Hjalmar Procopé

Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 23:01:47 (UTC)

Original – Hjalmar J. Procopé, Finland's ambassador to the United States, in Washington D.C. at the end of the Finnish Winter War in 1940. Prior to his career as ambassador, Procopé served as minister on several occasions: Minister of Trade and Industry (1920-1921, 1924) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (1924-1925, 1927-1931).
Reason
A very high quality portrait of a notable Finnish politician and diplomat.
Articles in which this image appears
Hjalmar Procopé
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political
Creator
Harris & Ewing Photographic Studio
  • Support as nominator --O.J. (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - We may need to have a link to the large image viewer. That's a lot of pixels. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many distracting elements in the photo and very harsh lighting employed, casting distracting shadows. —Eustress talk 04:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Eustress. Clegs (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Derek Jeter's 2,722nd hit

Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 18:27:20 (UTC)

Original – Derek Jeter salutes the Yankee Stadium crowd after breaking Lou Gehrig's franchise hit record.
Reason
High quality image of proper size depicting Derek Jeter, regarded as a future Hall of Famer, during one of his most notable moments. He is saluting the Yankee Stadium crowd as they celebrate his 2,722nd career hit, with which he passed Lou Gehrig for the franchise record. He's got his typical stoic facial expression, which is pure Jeter. In addition to the articles, this image illustrates Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees very well.
Articles in which this image appears
Derek Jeter, History of the New York Yankees, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator
created by Chris Ptacek, Flickr user, uploaded by Kanesue
  • Support as nominator --– Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, I think this is too dark, too grainy and too soft. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. such a historic picture is non-reshootable; to get a better quality than this, you're going to have to get a press pass (I've tried to get big lenses in to baseball games... the ushers are nazis). Clegs (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the fans can't get good cameras in, there are press there with good cameras, so good photos exist. — raekyt 13:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose To address Clegs' claim, we already have a higher quality, FP of Jeter. This is simply too grainy for a modern, active, highly photographed player. And while yes there is historical value given the timing, the photo itself does not really reflect that in a meaningful way as far as I am concerned (the event was famous, this photo/act really wasn't). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Pope Nicholas V

Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2012 at 02:07:49 (UTC)

Original – A portrait of Pope Nicholas V, by Peter Paul Rubens. The oil on panel painting dates from the early 1600s.
Reason
High quality work of art which depicts the subject well
Articles in which this image appears
Pope Nicholas V
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others (doesn't look like there's a religion section)
Creator
Peter Paul Rubens
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Definite EV, clean scan —Eustress talk 05:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Aeroflot Airbus A330

Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 14:04:09 (UTC)

Original – An Aeroflot Airbus A330-200 as it climbs out of Sheremetyevo Airport.
  • Edit Add some space
Reason
High quality photo of this aircraft in flight (previous nom)
Articles in which this image appears
Airbus A330, Aeroflot
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator
Sergey Kustov
  • Support as nominator --Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I wouldn't mind seeing a bit taken off the top and bottom, there's a lot of empty space. But it's still pretty great and really detailed (you can even make out the pilot). Has great EV for both articles, except it gets a bit lost in Aeroflot and it could do with replacing the weaker Lede image in Airbus A330, despite that one showing the wheels. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit. Good shot. The edit is better aesthetically. Clegs (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Great shot, love the clouds. GreyHood Talk 12:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- I am happy with either but prefer the original. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit I like the edit because it helps me focus on the plane a little more. —Eustress talk 04:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Wacht am Rhein (2)

Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 12:08:43 (UTC)

Original – Map showing the swelling of "the Bulge" as the German offensive progressed creating the nose-like salient during 16–25 December 1944.                      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 project's recommended 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 since the colour scheme was changed. #4: yes. #5: Good encyclopedic value, I would hope, in supporting text in primarily those articles below (and a few others which are weaker). Replaced the previous file recently, but that had been in place for a sufficient time. #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.
The previous FPC (here) revealed a variety of viewpoints. Ultimately in trying to take a number of things into account, we got a bit lost. However, I believe this file is the most suitable and I considered the issues rased there settled – I can provide further rationales if needed.
Articles in which this image appears
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
Matthewedwards, Grandiose
  • Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done; my only grouch is the arrows showing the Northern attacks get mushed together. Not enough of a grouch to ultimately change my mind though. Very well done, and I appreciate all the hard work you put into this to satisfy our whims. Clegs (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as co-author. I think this does a good job of satisfying all issues raised at the previous nom, and has been fact-checked numerous times against the sources. The opaque elevation levels allow for clear reading of the main substance of the map, the battlelines, but still allows the user to see the type of terrain it took place on. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the arrows look like they were drawn by a wiggly hand and yet others are smooth. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed? I smoothed out the three that I noticed, but we really don't want to deviate from the original sources. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: One (relatively minor) qualm with the image: some of the allied movement blue numbers are outlined with a thin black line, and this doesn't look extremely great when the image is viewed at full size. SpencerT♦C 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think it added much, so I've removed the stroke from the labels. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Frankfurt panorama 2nd try

Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 01:05:12 (UTC)

Original – A panorama of Frankfurt seen from Maintower in August 2005.
Reason
Good EV, nice large panorama, previous nom was a close call
Articles in which this image appears
Frankfurt, Maintower
FP category
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Schaengel
  • Support as nominator --Pine(talk) 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The skyscraper with the golden symbol is cut off (a big issue as it is so prominent) Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Crisco. Clegs (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Also, would like to see the bottom of some of the larger skyscrapers to the right, particularly the Deutsche Bank Twin Towers as they are so iconic. God EmperorTalk 18:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose At risk of joining in a pile-on, the cut-off is too distracting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The photo is seven years old and as such outdated. Skyscrapers such as Tower 185, Opernturm and PalaisQuartier are entirely missing, not to mention other buildings... --KFP (contact - edits) 04:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
...(Very nice panorama, though!) --KFP (contact - edits) 04:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Morphology of Caprella mutica (Japanese skeleton shrimp)

Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2012 at 00:40:46 (UTC)

Original – Morphology of a male Caprella mutica
Reason
large image, good EV for the articles because of the diagram
Articles in which this image appears
Caprella mutica and Caprellidae. I have just now added it to Morphology (biology) which previously had no images.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Crustaceans
Creator
Obsidian Soul
  • Support as nominator --Pine(talk) 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a few issues with this:
  • It should be SVG for translatability
  • The focal depth is much too shallow
  • Background has been noticeably removed (possibly) through harsh changes to the levels
  • The resolution could be higher
I think the concept is excellent though and would love to see some of these issues fixed. - Zephyris Talk 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This is based on a photograph. The svg format would not be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You could embed the raster image and have the labels part of the SVG. Having said that, I don't think we should demand it. I'll let you guys consider it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Embedding raster images results in extremely poor rendering of the raster by our svg rendering engine, last I checked. sonia♫ 22:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Ontario Highway 401 at Night

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 21:14:19 (UTC)

Original – Night lapse of Ontario Highway 401, the busiest highway in North America.
Reason
This picture was nominated for a featured picture before, but I feel it deserves a second chance due to it's usefulness in the articles in which it is displayed.
Articles in which this image appears
Ontario Highway 401, Toronto, street light, long-exposure photography, lighting, controlled-access highway
FP category for this image
Engineering and technology
Creator
Kenny Louie (kennymatic on Flickr)
  • Support as nominator --Haljackey (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to limited EV for the articles listed. Were it not for the articles mentioned here I wouldn't know that this were Toronto or Highway 401. I wouldn't know that it's controlled-access either, except I saw the other (now withdrawn) nomination. In lighting it's being used to highlight the high-mast street lamps (which happen to be the smallest-sized lighted parts in the photo), rather than the more obvious lights from the vehicles or buildings. Nor it doesn't really show how well they light the road in street light because of all the other light from the cars and buildings, although I suppose there's not really a time when this road is quiet enough for that. EV for Long-exposure photography is good, but it's not exceptional and there are others that are equally as good or better at Commons:Category:Automobile light trails. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral the only place where this looks like it has good value is Long-exposure photography. Pine(talk) 22:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Cricketer bowled

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 15:57:28 (UTC)

Original – A batsman is bowled early in a cricket match between two friendly sides at Kingswood School playing fields, Bath.
Reason
A picture showing a cricketer who has just been bowled, good EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Bowled, Dismissal (cricket)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator
Lemonlolly
  • Support as nominator --Harrias talk 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is too bad, but I would have preferred to have had the bowler included too so we know where the ball comes from and how. I'll reserve judgement for now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose per above. If I didn't watch cricket (yes, I'm weird, I'm an American who watches cricket), I would have no clue what was happening. Needs the bowler in picture. Clegs (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's the best picture of a cricketer I've seen so far, but I still don't get what being "bowled" is (since I don't know much about cricket). I can't tell what's happening in the photo. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – I can appreciate that without a baseline knowledge of cricket, this isn't as valuable as I thought. As a cricket fan (and someone playing in this match) I obviously knew what was happening, and it didn't even cross my mind it wasn't as obvious to other people. Does it have any value merely as a dismissal? I'm guessing not, but worth checking! Harrias talk 21:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments I'm not too familiar with your guidelines and criteria, but I'll point out that this photo could usefully illustrate a number of articles about cricket kit, including Whites (cricket), Batting gloves, Batting helmet and Stumps. It also shows the difference between the pitch (the light coloured short-mown grass he's standing on) and the outfield, which people can find difficult to distinguish from text and presumably have articles I'm too lazy to look for. The very dark strip is probably a practice strip, possibly with an artificial surface. We probably have an article on batting stance or technique, but I wouldn't use this image, except perhaps as an example of how not to bat. Incidentally, the photo is an excellent cricket picture - because the bowler isn't in it. By which I mean that because the chap 22 yards away can't be seen, there's some great detail visible, including the batsman's despairing look, the ball sharply in focus and even both of the bails (one on top of the left hand stump, the other is in the top left hand corner, flying dramatically out of shot). --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment (basically support) This discussion is going in the favour that there should have been a bowler in shot. However, I agree with Dweller fully, a bowler in shot, which could have meant 22 yards in picture, could have lessened the EV. The focus is as what the nominator says, it displays the every detail of a batsman being bold, the stumps is in focus, the batsman and the equipments. extra999 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] JFK with Caroline on the Honey Fitz

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 12:08:43 (UTC)

Original – Hyannisport Weekend. Caroline Kennedy, President Kennedy. Hyannisport, MA, aboard the "Honey Fitz".
Reason
This is one of the only pictures of him with his closest living relative, it's a nice historical image.
Articles in which this image appears
Caroline Kennedy
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator
Cecil W. Stoughton
  • Support as nominator --777 — 12:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not convinced by the EV. I can see other photos of her with her father, eg [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support All other aforementioned images are black-and-white. This one has a good composition in particular, but perhaps would benefit from denoisement. Brandmeister t 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has something been done to her like photoshopping? She looks like an Auton. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Other things too. Her head is obviously lopsided, so not the best angle to see her; half her face is covered by the white frilly thing; the blanket's covering her body so we can't even imagine how big or old she is; The quality of the image isn't good enough for my liking either. There's a green tint across her face and it's just too grainy. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Cute snapshot, snapshot with some historical value, but still just a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Jesse Owens in Berlin 1936

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 11:07:05 (UTC)

Original – Jesse Owens at start of record breaking 200 meter race during the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin.
Alt
Reason
A very valuable image of a historic event, which is used in many articles, with nice composition and dynamism that adds to the EV. Relatively high technical quality for a historic image.
Articles in which this image appears
Jesse Owens, African American, 1930s, Jesse Owens Award, List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients, Ohio State Buckeyes, Timeline of African-American Civil Rights Movement
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator
Unknown
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- There's more resolution in that LOC TIF. If restored and cropped, the resulting file should be much larger than the currently nominated image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit, oppose original -- Much nicer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral on Original. Pretty iconic image, but agree that I'd like to see a re-edit. The hi-res TIFF isn't particularly great quality (due to print quality of original source), but it looks like more could be done with it. I'm not sure if this is available from another original source with better print quality. The blacks on this restoration have also been made too heavy. In fact I'd probably be more inclined to support a fairly simple edit of the TIFF with little more than a crop and straighten. --jjron (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • As you suggested, I've added an alt. Tomer T (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Weak Support Alt. Could probably do with a bit of a dust and scratch removal on the Alt still, and not sure there wouldn't be a better original print around to scan, but other values compensate. Please count as 'full support' if this comes down to a borderline decision. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, where's this TIFF you're talking about? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Here. The alt I've added is a conversion of this TIFF to JPG format, plus crop and straighten. Tomer T (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Edit only. Good scan of a very historic photo.




[edit] Majas

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:53:43 (UTC)

Original – La maja desnuda, one of two nominations in this set. The painting measures 97 cm × 190 cm (38 in × 75 in)
Original – La maja vestida, one of two nominations in this set. The painting measures 95 × 190 cm (37.4 × 74.8 in)
Reason
I was looking for a break from film posters (my morning was all posters) and I discovered these little gems. The two have an interesting back story: after outcry over his nude (La maja desnuda), the painter Francisco Goya went ahead and painted another one with clothes entitled La maja vestida, rather than overpainting his earlier work. La maja desnuda is said to have the first clear depiction of female pubic hair in Western art.
Articles in which this image appears
La maja desnuda, La maja vestida, Francisco Goya, and more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Francisco Goya
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a kind of stamp on the right cheek of Maja desnuda. Brandmeister t 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That same stamp appears a couple of times in the upper left of the second painting as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, it says MUSEO NACIONAL DEL PRADO, I believe. The stamp isn't on the image on the website of the museum, where the description page indicates this image came from. This image is also brighter than the image on the website - are you sure the source is stated correctly? God EmperorTalk 14:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It appears the uploader neglected to mark his source when uploading. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure how that follows. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I.e. I could not find exact replicas online, so his/her source may be down. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
            • But the image was uploaded in 2010. Since it's held at the MNdP, the source link points there, the watermark points there, don't you think it's likely that it came from there? They may have simply changed their watermarking policy in the 16 months or so since it was uploaded. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Perhaps. Do you have a link to a script that allows one to download such images? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose until the stamps are removed. Clegs (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support now. Brandmeister t 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are still (at my count) 5 stamps in the desnuda and 4 in the vestida. Also, if I'm nitpicky, you can see a bit of white left over from the stamp on the cheek of the desnuda on the line between face and hair, though I wouldn't notice anything wrong if I wasn't looking for it. God EmperorTalk 22:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Make that 7 on the desnuda. The stamps seem to go regularly in horizontal lines and I think there are places where stamps have been removed badly previously. To be honest I don't think this will ever be satisfactorarily cleaned up so I'm going to
      Oppose. God EmperorTalk 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I think I got them all. Don't forget to purge your cache before looking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Still one on the corner of the pillow along the right hand side of the vestida. God EmperorTalk 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • And also on her dress above her left breast and below her right breast. God EmperorTalk 01:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I got those and the image is currently uploading (my connection sucks, so it may take up to 10 minutes. I have to go deal with applying for my masters, but if I missed any I'll pick this up when I come back. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Wedge-tailed Eagle

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:31:21 (UTC)

Original – Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax), Captain's Flat, New South Wales, Australia
Reason
As I was leaving for a day's photography, I spotted a Diamond Firetail drinking from a puddle on the other side of my hire car. I managed to get my camera out without flushing it, but just as I had the camera pointing at it around the car. I waited in the car for quite a while before setting off. I was a little annoyed that I'd wasted valuable haze-free morning, but the delay turned out to be lucky - this eagle was waiting just outside the driveway, in a tree, where I was staying.
Articles in which this image appears
Wedge-tailed Eagle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Good shot. Clegs (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The beak is one solid blown highlight. Dusty777 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed, not that it made an appreciable difference. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support -- I like the bird but that beak is bothering me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Common Bronzewing

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:24:49 (UTC)

Original – Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera), Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra, Australia
Edit 1 with adjusted levels for more symmetric histogram (and reduced saturation as appropriate)
Edit 2 - Crop, black point adjustment
Reason
This image captures the wing feather iridescence well.
Articles in which this image appears
Common Bronzewing
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The bird is excellent, but I find that hugely OOF area taking up the bottom sixth of the picture more than a little offputting. I wish we could crop it out, but it goes too close to the bird's feet to remove it all; I wonder if it's worth trying to crop in closer all round however to remove some of it, but keep the picture balanced? --jjron (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Added Alt 1. I find the original too bright, and the contrast between the breast of the bird and the background is not great as a result. God EmperorTalk 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh dear, I just saw the conversation over the Leaden Flycatcher. You're not going to be happy about this are you JJ? God EmperorTalk 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • No. :P. A symmetric histogram isn't indicative of correct exposure - one would never have to use exposure compensation on the camera if it was. To be frank, this particular edit looks terrible, it has way too much contrast. I think maybe the original could do with a tad more contrast in this case. So I will have a go at a crop/levels. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alt 1, Weak Support Original and Alt 2. Alt 1 way to contrasty. the original and alt 2 are better, but the breast of the bird seems to be slightly overexposed. Clegs (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose all the bright green background is blinding me. Pine(talk) 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Edit 2 looks best to me. O.J. (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Wandering Albatross in flight

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2012 at 10:22:21 (UTC)

Original – Wandering Albatross (Diomedea exulans) in flight, East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
This isn't the best angle to show the wing plumage - File:Diomedea exulans in flight 2 - SE Tasmania.jpg is better for that. However, I think this picture really communicates the wingspan of this species and albatrosses in general.
Articles in which this image appears
Wandering Albatross, Albatross
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW this image of a Wandering Albatross is already featured. I guess we could say this one complements it (they're quite different poses/angles). --jjron (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- Almost need to use the wide template for that wingspan:) Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Yet another excellent shot. Clegs (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support EV is so-so when we already have Diomedea_exulans_-_SE_Tasmania.jpg as a featured picture, but this is a good shot. Pine(talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nice action shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Even more impressive when magnified! —Eustress talk 05:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] The Mummy (1932 film)

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 13:27:02 (UTC)

Original – The film poster for The Mummy, a 1932 horror film, directed by Karl Freund and released by Universal Studios
Reason
High quality, high EV. Attractive aesthetically as well.
Articles in which this image appears
The Mummy (1932 film)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Employee(s) of Universal Pictures, attributed to Karoly Grosz
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Great quality scan! —Eustress talk 15:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Great colors and detail. High EV. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There are a couple of green stripes: one through the writing and her dress and a shorter one to the left of the bottom of her dress. Are these on the original or did the scanner create them. If the latter, could this be fixed. Colin°Talk 10:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look at them. If I decide that they are scanning artefacts, hopefully I can remove them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Kinda sick of looking at film posters in GIMP today though... this morning was dedicated to To Be or Not to Be and I'm not entirely pleased with the results. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Classic. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support looks great --Guerillero | My Talk 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The poster is attributed to Karoly Grosz (the artist not the politician) and for a while held the record for the most expensive movie poster ever sold. The colours look a bit off in this version. Yomanganitalk 00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    Christies' restoration image for comparison (though they can't keep the colours the same between the two images). Yomanganitalk 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • To me, the pre-restored version is near the colours we have here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] File:Tom Chapin portrait

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 03:55:22 (UTC)

Original – American singer and storyteller Tom Chapin
Reason
Meets WP:WIAFP criteria to be a featured picture.
Articles in which this image appears
Tom Chapin, Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for Children
FP category for this image
/People/Entertainment
Creator
Dschwen
  • Support as nominator --Albacore (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Something weird is going on with the colours on the face. It reminds me of trying to correct for the colour balance of a sodium vapour lamp, but I am only guessing. The lighting is quite hard too, and the image isn't super sharp. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Light on face is too harsh. —Eustress talk 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Keypunch

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 03:07:34 (UTC)

Original – A woman using a keypunch to tabulate the United States Census, circa 1890
Reason
Historic image of the way computations used to be done
Articles in which this image appears
Keypunch, United States Census, Herman Hollerith
FP category for this image
History/USA History
Creator
Unknown or not provided (image from National Archives and Records Administration)
  • Support as nominator --—Eustress talk 03:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The image page caption needs work. I don't think punching the cards turned the data into statistics - it just allowed a computer to do so. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Good point, I've updated the image page caption accordingly. —Eustress talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. High quality for such an old picture. Clegs (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2012‎ (UTC)
  • Support. Agree that it's high quality, nicely composed and has historical value. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Clegs and Mathew. I thought it's 1940s or 1950s. Brandmeister t 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- Great image! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. --jjron (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support good black and white photo with EV Pinetalk 09:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support High quality and encyclopedic value. - Darwinek (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Girl with styrofoam swimming board

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 02:34:31 (UTC)

Original – A young girl relaxing in a pool by floating on a rainbow-coloured styrofoam swimming board
Reason
Beautiful pic with varied EV
Articles in which this image appears
Swimming float, swimming lessons, human swimming, organic chemistry
FP category for this image
Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator
Tommy Wong, from Flickr
  • Support as nominator --—Eustress talk 02:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support -- Love it! Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose. Highlights and CA make the focus point difficult to pick out. Also not sure how this has EV for swimming lessons or swimming, as its pretty obvious she's doing neither. Clegs (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Great for the family album or a stock photo agency, good for Commons, but lacks EV for WP. Per Clegs she's clearly neither swimming nor having a swimming lesson (and lets forget the EV for organic chemistry). Re the first listed article I'm highly dubious on the swimming float usage too; the very shallow DOF used makes it hard to say for sure, but she looks to be laying in very shallow water, thus not actually floating, or more to the point not using the kickboard as a flotation aid; her body posture and way the swim suit is laying would support this. And as a final kicker for EV, that's not how you're meant to use a kickboard. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose pretty but EV is not compelling. Pinetalk 08:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. Sorry, nice picture but Jjron makes good points, and the girl appears to be falling asleep - just not feeling the EV. God EmperorTalk 11:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Baking of bread set

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 08:42:47 (UTC)

Baking of bread
1  
2  
3  
4  
5  
6  
7  
8  
9  
10  
11  
12  
Reason
Really high educational value in the article Bread, a great set for an encyclopedia
Articles in which this image appears
Bread
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Chmee2
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wouldn't a video be simpler? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Crisco makes a good point. I would add that if we're going to go with photographs, we should take care to eliminate some of the redundancy in this set, e.g. 9 and 10, and also how we keep looking back at those shelves with only minor changes. I think shelf shots should only be used to indicate waiting time, and they should be taken from the same angle to allow focusing on essential differences. To give another specific example, seeing the flour being applied is better than seeing the floury loaves on the shelf, and makes that second shot redundant. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • omment Each of these needs a detailed caption in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Each image alone is pretty average, and together it just amplifies the averageness, sorry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Focus issues throughout (especially the picture taking bread out of the oven--focus is behind the oven). Like the idea of a video. Any chance you could get back in there with a decent video camera? Clegs (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi. First of all, thanks for this nomination, I am happy and proud of it! However, I agree with "opponents" that these images are not technically the best one and they do not fit standards for FP (on Commons, I am not sure, what are standards here). On the other hand, it was really hard place for taking good images and when I checked my private gallery on Commons I took only one Quality image there. I would like to answer several questions. Firstly, I believed that photos are more educative than video, because they highlight the main points of this procedure. For this reason I took mirror camera with me, not video camera. Unfortunately, I am not able go there one more time in the near feature and if yes, there will be again the same problem. This was not baking museum but real bakery, where everything has to be done quick. There is no place for tripod or some long preparation for photographing :/ And just for fan, there are images from more procedures, see Bread roll, Kifli, or cs:Veka. And of course! I will be really happy when you find some articles on en.wiki, where to add images from Czech bakery :) Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Firefighters during Yellowstone fires of 1988

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 08:21:56 (UTC)

Original – Firefighters doing mop-up after fire in sage at Mammoth Hot Springs, September 10, 1988, during Yellowstone fires of 1988.
Reason
Good illustrative value for the article Yellowstone fires of 1988, good quality for a 1988 photo
Articles in which this image appears
Yellowstone fires of 1988
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator
Jim Peaco
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's really foggy, I know it's not possible to take a clear shot in such place, but this is too obscure (esp. it's not easy to understand what's there in the background?!). We can find more clear images from the fired places. ●Mehran Debate● 12:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Foggy? Isn't it smoke? Wouldn't you expect that from smouldering things after a fire? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Apologize, I meant "Smoke"! As I said above it's very obscure, please compare this image with some other similar ones. ●Mehran Debate● 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Doesn't show the fires themselves, although the best composition would include both fires and firefighting efforts. Brandmeister t 00:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A better caption about what the firefighters are doing would help with this image's EV. Pinetalk 08:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • YesY Done Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • "Doing mop up" isn't very explanatory. Can you be more specific? Pine(talk) 22:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Grey Heron

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 00:48:46 (UTC)

Original – A wild grey heron (ardea c. cinerea) in London Zoo, with retracted neck
Alt-1
Alt 2 - As original without noise issues and higher (still) resolution
Image originally nominated
Reason
The first nomination for this image closed a while back with 6 supports (including nominator's), 4 opposes, a weak oppose and a neutral. Numerous alternate versions were uploaded (rather late in the voting period) which fixed several of the perceived problems (unnatural background colouring and beak too close to edge of frame). Crucially, all of the opposing votes were added before the first alternate image was added, and once the first alternate image was added the only votes cast were in favour. I was wondering if the result might have been different had the problems been fixed sooner and thought the best way to find out was to renominate.
Articles in which this image appears
Grey Heron
FP category for this image
Birds
Creator
God Emperor
  • Support alt 2 as nominator --God EmperorTalk 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like the photo, but I still think my edit from the previous nom (Alt-1) is better. There are some serious noise and gradient issues in the background of your new version. However, the level of detail in the bird itself is much higher thanks to the higher resolution. There is definitely potential in this picture. O.J. (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The added EV seems to be in retraction of the neck; however, a before-and-after composite would be better to illustrate this. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. The image can easily be placed next to an one with a Grey Heron with neck extended for that purpose (as it is in the article). Making the image a composite would just restrict it's use. God EmperorTalk 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • No, we've had noms like this before where the images were promoted as a set. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Why did the background change colour so much in the first place? Was it a saturation adjustment? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • In my edit the hue and saturation of the background are adjusted. O.J. (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you not change the lightness as well? - I did in my edit in trying to get the same colour as you. I will redo the edit to sort out the noise when I have time. God EmperorTalk 13:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support original and edit 2, neutral to edit 1. The original (and now, edit 2) gets the realistic color that I was looking for. Clegs (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Added Alt 2. I resolved the noise issues and didn't resize at all this time. If people think it is too soft at full resolution I could downsize this to 2/3 like the original. God EmperorTalk 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Tide pool

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2012 at 23:09:40 (UTC)

Original – The side of a tide pool showing sea stars (Dermasterias), sea anemones (Anthopleura) and sea sponges in Santa Cruz, California.
Reason
Illustrative value, high quality
Articles in which this image appears
Tide pool, Biocoenosis, Ecosystem, Body of water, Intertidal ecology, Marine biology
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not a vote yet. Am I seeing things, or does the focus look just a bit goofy? Clegs (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Focus appears to be a little bit off and photo is not a clear illustration of a tide pool to me -- looks like any underwater shot, could be anywhere. File:Porto Covo February 2009-2.jpg seems more instructive as an example of a tide pool. —Eustress talk 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per not quite in focus. Clegs (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2012 at 16:09:33 (UTC)

Original – Five-cent US postal currency, first issue, featuring Thomas Jefferson. The note is 2.5 by 1.75 inches (63.5 by 44.5 mm).
Reason
High quality, good EV. The stamp is more than 150 years old, which is quite interesting.
Articles in which this image appears
Postal currency
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator
United States Post Office.




[edit] Australia women's national water polo team set

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 12:49:50 (UTC)

Reason
The pictures are high quality (all 1000px or above) and as a set help to give an idea as to who plays for the Australia women's national water polo team. With the exception of all the two assistant coaches, all the images are used to illustrate who a player (or coach) is on their individual article. Work best as a set as opposed to individually.
Articles in which this image appears
Bronwen Knox, Kate Gynther, Glencora Ralph,Ashleigh Southern, Nicola Zagame,Jane Moran, Holly Lincoln-Smith, Rowena Webster, Gemma Beadsworth, Melissa Rippon, Sophie Smith, Isobel Bishop, Zoe Arancini, Hannah Buckling, Alicia McCormack, Victoria Brown,Kelsey Wakefield,Greg McFadden
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator
Bidgee
  • Support as nominator --LauraHale (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment FPs need to be used in at least one article to be promoted. Two of these images are unused. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support To have high quality photographs of an entire national squad is quite rare, and they do of course add immensely to the articles on the individuals. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would be okay with the two assistant coaches being removed from the set. I think I could create articles for them. I think they could probably withstand an AfD, but they would only qualify under WP:GNG and I'd rather not risk that. Thus, yes, easier to remove them from the nomination. --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we adjust the exposures to make them consistent? For example the image of Ashleigh Southern is darker than the one of Rowena Webster. The coaches are all darker than the players. The wall could be used as a reference, but it is just as easy to look at the shutter speed, iso and aperture and work it out that way before saving from the RAWs. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The coaches pictures are darker because they were taken later that evening, rather than being a variation of the camera exposure settings. Colin°Talk 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have the RAW files and will try to fix the exposure, though it may take a day or more since I'm busy in real life. Also, those were edited on my laptop which isn't the best to edit RAW photos from. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I have more pressing issues to deal with ATM and isn't high on my list. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I doubt the time has an impact - the coaches have white t-shirts, which throw the metering a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: would like to support; however, I'm concerned that as soon as the roster changes, we're going to have to start delisting. What do you guys think? Clegs (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Call the set Australia women's national water polo team 2012? The individual images will have high enough EV individually to maybe keep the set alive even after the roster changes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The precedent is that if a subject is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough for a FP. Most of these photos have corresponding individual articles, so I don't see a problem. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but I'm not sure we'd be supporting these individually. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lighting is OK but doesn't flatter -- showing every pore and spot. The subjects are standing too close to the background, so the texture is visible as is their shadow. The 35mm-equivalent focal length of around 40mm is an odd choice for a portrait: the wide angle and being less than a metre from the subject isn't a flattering combination, especially for the nose. All the images have been cropped or downsampled to have 2k at the longest edge leaving a <4MP image from the original 18MP out of the camera. The set would be more useful if they had been cropped square rather than being almost square but varying in width and height. That all the ladies' pictures were taken within three minutes of each other tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait. Alicia, Gemma and Sophie aren't in focus. Ashleigh isn't looking at the camera. Holly is sloping to one side. Kelsey's smile is unfortunate. Rowena doesn't look happy at all. Gregory might have bothered to shave. Dalibor is too tall for the background.... --Colin°Talk 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This was a quick photo shoot before the match, so time was limited. If I had my own way, I would have used a studio with the correct lighting but in this case it wasn't possible. Yes, the lens was a poor selection however a number of factors made me pick it. Sorry I'm fine with the criticism/critiquing but "tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait", I take that as an insult and very much why I hate FP on en Wiki and Commons. I take care with all my photographs but when you're pressed for time and you don't have the gear that would have made the difference (I'm not made of money nor do I have a money tree). If you have a problem with my downsizing, that it your problem not mine. I have my reasons to downsize and no I don't do commercial photography. Fact is your insult has me questioning whether I want to contribute any further photographs to the project. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm really sorry you have taken it this way. It wasn't meant as an insult. I'm sure you took as much care as 10-second-per-person allowed you to take. But the fact remains we are judging a featured picture here. Can I put it another way for you: Considering the photographer only had three minutes to take all these pictures, they're pretty good and make a valuable contributions to our articles on the subject. They're just not FP standard and I note that you didn't nominate them. Colin°Talk 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Your comment had nothing to do with FP, it was a indirect attack at myself, by saying I do not care about anything I do. Look what happens when you have the right lighting condtions and at least I leave in the EXIF data. I noted your other constructive criticism for the future photography I do. Even with your comment striked, I still feel totally upset and humiliated to the point that I feel that there is no point in me to contribute anymore. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Geez Bidgee, don't leave... Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


  • Comment: As the quality of the pictures in terms of lens selection is an issue, some of the back story regarding the images. I asked the team media manager for permission to take pictures on Tuesday night. She arranged it so pictures could be taken two days later, at 5:10pm before the start of an international test match at 6:30pm against Great Britain, informed the players they would have their pictures taken and why they were desired. I was told the venue. There was very little flexibility available for Bidgee to play with. He had less than 48 hours notice to book a bus, arrange accommodation and chose the right camera materials for a type of picture he had very little experience taking. The venue/backdrop was chosen based on the team. The time of day was set because of the match time. It was taken inside a pool. There was an expectation by me and the media I talked to that Bidgee would take pictures of players in action during the game. At the same time, Bidgee had very, very little time to take these pictures. The time crunch was such that he took pictures of 17 women in about 5 minutes. (I had a list of their names, and recorded the picture order. Bidgee showed each player the picture after he took it.) There wasn't time enough to do much more than that. The blue back drop was a team suggestion. I think these are some of the best profile pictures taken of female athletes in any sport, and are superior to the pictures appearing on Australian Water Polo's website. Compare Bidgee's picture of Zoe Arancini to Australian Water Polo. Are they individually the best pictures ever? No, and a few could be fixed... but nothing us hugely problematic and as a set, they are in my opinion, really, really fantastic (especially given the conditions) and better than any others of their kind on Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I've struck the comment Bidgee took personally and apologised on his talk page. These pictures are valuable to WP and I appreciate the time you guys spent arranging this, taking the pictures and uploading them for free to WP. I agree that Zoe's picture is very good. I'm not aware that we have any "featured set" criteria that lowers the standard for individual pics but if someone wants to point me at it then I could revise my review. Colin°Talk 09:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Featured sets have always been a bit contentious. Nothing is written down and everybody has different feelings about them. Some feel that a set can be greater than the sum of it's parts. Others feel that each image should meet the FPC criteria individually, and often dislike the idea of sets because they feel each image isn't judged properly. Sometimes I attempt to avoid them, and just nominate small numbers of related images separately, but then I get comments like "these should be in a set". One can't win really. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with a featured set concept where not every pic needs to be individually FP quality (perhaps at least something like Commons' QI standards). I agree there is added value to the set over and above individual photographs. But no alternative criteria exists and this is a review of feature picture (singular) candidates, so I've judged the images against our criteria. I see now from this discussion that Laura was encouraged to nominate these by folk who haven't followed through with their support here. I feel she should have been better advised. This (Jeremy Doyle) featured pic is better than any of these, yet got quite a tough review at FPC. I wasn't nearly as picky as any of those comments. Colin°Talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This is yet another example of the many problems with sets and why they're a bad idea. Individually and overall these images are good and valuable for WP (great job by both Bidgee and LauraHale, and anyone else involved), but I doubt anyone would argue they would all pass FPC individually. As noted above, there are no separate criteria to say that images in sets should have different standards applied to them. I'd suggest that the few best should be selected and nominated individually to get a more considered evaluation here. --jjron (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's not repeat the mistake made earlier, which only led to disappointment when someone's bubble was burst. Are you confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain, and would you support them? We've got FPs that aren't as good technically as the best here, but they are of a really famous person, or have a more natural pose or lighting. Individually, these women are barely notable and it is obvious they were asked to stand against a wall and smile. Colin°Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
TBH I've only looked at about one of them closely (yet another issue with sets; how many people actually scrutinise them all before !voting as they would for a normal FPC?), which helps explain why I haven't !voted. But really it's not up to whether or not I would support them; it's whether any of them may stand a chance out on their own when opened up to the FP community. I'm not the community. And am I "confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain" - absolutely not; there's not many images that do that, and I'd never say I'm confident that anything will do so beforehand. In fact what happens in various noms I often find mind-boggling. My point really is, say pick the best one, nominate it, see how it goes. If it passes there may be few that could get through, if not, it's probably not worth pursuing. But at least the nominator/contributor will get an idea of whether any of these are regarded by the community as meeting the FPC criteria without the confusion brought about by nomming the set. On the other hand, many contributors avoid nomming at FPC for good reasons. But FP star or not, they're still great for the 'pedia. --jjron (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you're being honest but IMO the problem is that I don't think any of those who advised Laura to nominate looked at them closely. Elsewhere, someone recommended Gemma as a single nom. Now she's a pretty girl, and it looks ok at preview size, but when you open it then you see it clearly isn't in focus (very obvious when compared to many of the others which are sharp) so would be a clear fail. A screenful of pretty girls and the boy's are going "What's not to like, nom the set". Is that what happened? You and I might have thick enough skin to "nominate it, see how it goes" but others apparently don't. Colin°Talk 07:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On Commons if there's no policy for something, we often start referring to en-wiki policy... so maybe en-wiki might like to take a look at commons ideas on sets (commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates... I'm biased, I wrote them):

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
  • If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • All images should be of high technical quality.

--99of9 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the majority would pass FP on their own. Commons would not be too happy about the downsampling either. Wrt your criteria, how would the third rule interact with WP's requirement to have all images in an article. For example, if some of the women above didn't have articles? Or if you had individual photos of a pop group, but only the lead singer's photo appeared in any article? Would you drop that rule for sets? Colin°Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The "majority FP" is for unlimited sets (e.g. a sequence of a wasp laying an egg), because there you have much more control over shot selection etc. But maybe en-wiki would prefer to make a majority rule on all sets (similar to featured topics)? I'm not sure what the best usage criteria would be, but I'm sure something is required. (Personally I'd ditch the assistant coaches.) --99of9 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as a set The portraits are technically sound, and a complete set of portraits of a national-level sports team has significant EV, so I think that the FP criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as set: I believe that the EV for the entirety of the team offsets the technical limitations of the images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support agree with Crisco 1492. Pine(talk) 22:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • NOTE: As I have been evacuated due to the threat of the Murrumbidgee River levee failing in Wagga Wagga[9], I will not be able to do any photograph work on the photos. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)j
  • Suspend nom? --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. A lot of the FPC regulars are waiting for the images to be touched up before they vote, based on the conversation above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I too am waiting for the exposure adjustment. I suggest we suspend it. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The nomination closure timer seems to have gone screwy on this, saying the voting period is already over (five days too early) so I've removed it. Please manually note closing time. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments above. Great contribution to WP, but individually it seems clear many of these would not pass FPC on their own, and that should be a baseline (or else we really need to reconsider all our criteria and judgements). As a 'set' they lack some basics such as being cropped to consistent dimensions; easily fixed, perhaps, but not there now. Would reconsider individually nommed images. --jjron (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly agree with jjron. These don't really have the EV necessary to pass separately (action shots would be far superior), and they're not being used as a set. Sets make sense when all the images are used in the same article, but that's not the case here. Lots of minor issues too (focus, composition, etc.). Makeemlighter (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)





[edit] Flying Fish poster

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2012 at 13:54:40 (UTC)

Original – Promotional poster for the 2011 Sri Lankan film Flying Fish, directed by Sanjeewa Pushpakumara
Reason
High quality, interesting image, good EV, underrepresented area (Sri Lankan film)
Articles in which this image appears
Flying Fish (film)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Sanjeewa Pushpakumara
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice scan job too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is a scan. This looks like the original artwork received direct from the film producers. So what are we judging here? The photograph? -- that's been extensively manipulated? A movie poster? -- it looks pretty average and standard. Yes, technically the image is very high quality, as one would expect of an original. Any advice? Colin°Talk 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The difference is that the pieces of fine art you've cited are notable by themselves. This movie poster is not. Only the movie is. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That wasn't an issue with the above-linked posters. The only thing with higher EV would be the film itself, and technical limitations prohibit us from hosting high quality films (hard to fit it in 100mb) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't a "reproduction". This is the original. So I'm not judging how well someone has scanned the image and retouched it to remove creases and coffee stains. Or how well someone has photographed a work of art in a gallery. We're judging a non-notable movie poster. Since it is an original, output from the computer of the poster designer, of course it is going to have flawless crisp writing and a high technical quality. Assuming this is a still from the film, then it illustrates the film to some degree - though the writing and the vignetting detract from that purpose, failing the "avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" if film-illustration is the EV. If displaying the movie poster is the EV then I guess it is as good as you could get. If we're judging the poster as a work of art/design then this is very unoriginal. So unoriginal, in fact, that the Film poster article could use it to illustrate the standard features of a modern movie poster. Colin°Talk 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have decided to oppose. This has lower EV than a still from the film. A film poster is an advertisement and this is a recent/current film. Rather than being a gift we should welcome, I'm concerned that such images are being donated to WP for promotional purposes. I don't think the FPC should promote a current advert as that is just a backdoor way of getting free advertising on WP. I'm going to create a discussion on the FPC talk page about this. Colin°Talk 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Supportgood quality as to nice scan. Alborzagros (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support the softness and brightness of the people in the image is done in a way that doesn't impress me, but this has good EV and the rest of the image is sharp. Pinetalk 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't understand the comparison to File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg. Those weren't promoted just because they're good scans; they're also good examples of movie posters. This is a mediocre example of a movie poster. There's nothing interesting in its design or in the underlying photograph. I don't understand Crisco's argument that we shouldn't judge the design. Why not? We judge a photograph in two ways: its encyclopedic utility in representing the subject and its aesthetic quality. So the same applies here. Chick Bowen 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • For me, EV outweighs poor posing and whatnot (assuming the poster is not completely ruined by being too dark etc.) I think that 30s to 50s era posters were more aesthetically pleasing, but times change. If you think that aesthetics is more important than EV, I cannot force you to change your mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that standards have dropped that much, particularly for independent films; for example, I think Errol Morris's posters (like this one and this one) are often very effectively and innovatively designed. I salute you for finding movie posters under free licenses and you should definitely keep trying, but so far, these are not good posters, even by today's standards. Chick Bowen 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)






[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 March archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  4. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
  5. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
    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 March 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.


[edit] Nominations for delisting

Shortcut:

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 will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.

  • 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.


[edit] 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.



[edit] 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.

[edit] Griffith Observatory

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 19:19:46 (UTC)

Original – Griffith Observatory is an observatory in Los Angeles, California, United States. It is a popular tourist attraction with an extensive array of space- and science-related displays.
Reason
High EV, great shot
Articles in which this image appears
Griffith Observatory, Griffith Park, John C. Austin, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Hollywood, List of museums in Los Angeles, California
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Mfield
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Caption should probably be more succinct, per WIAFP:7a (see also CAP#Succinctness). —Eustress talk 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I've shortened it. Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Support Caption issued resolved, excellent photo —Eustress talk 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Oppose Didn't realize it until reading JJ's comment below... he's right, the camera is focused on the houses in the background and not on the observatory. Still an impressive picture, but FP criterion 1 says the main subject must be in focus. —Eustress talk 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support That is stunning! At full zoom, it's a bit soft, but still passable. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah ok, the focus plane is out. I kind of noticed this the first time, but didn't put 2 and 2 together. Reluctant oppose. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • comment tree to the right of the door (as it appear in the pic) appears strangly blured. Stitching error?©Geni 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support I agree with Aaadddaaammm about softness. Pinetalk 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Good quality. Clegs (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory. The image quality is very average compared to most of our landscape shots. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wasn't particularly drawn to this when it was nominated but I didn't want to be the first to oppose. I guess the the reason the Observatory isn't sharp is because of what JJ said? It's a shame it's off-center too. The Astronomers Monument should have been dead center in the middle of the door. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If the monument was centered in front of the door, we might not be able to see the door as well as we do here. I like the angle. Pinetalk 08:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • comment from the photographer Interestingly I just happened upon FP today for the first time in ages and saw this so I thought I'd address a couple of points that have been raised incorrectly. I would say I never figured this would be an FP or I would probably have nominated it back when I was a regular here, I uploaded it for its enc value. JJ says ' I'm pretty sure that this has been cropped from a larger image, and the camera has focused on the houses behind, rather than the observatory." Well, per the image caption, this is not cropped from a larger image at all, quite the contrary, it is a stitch of four quarters in landscape format. Secondly, the camera did not focus on the houses behind, it focused on the observatory, however as this was shot with a 20D and a then new 300 F4L, this predated Live View, and hence critical manual focus, and the lens/body combination back focused as I discovered shortly after. The 20D was retired soon after and I never worried about it again. Like I said anyway, I uploaded it for its enc rather than its photographic merit, but it has amazingly stood the test of time in the article and numerous templates and infobox mosaics. Mfield (Oi!) 03:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] John Cena

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 20:29:23 (UTC)

Original – Professional wrestler and rapper John Cena making his entrance at the 2010 WWE Tribute to the Troops
Reason
Nice capture of the ceremonial entrance made by competitors before professional wrestling matches. Would be first pro wrestling FP. Borderline on pixel threshold but still good resolution.
Articles in which this image appears
John Cena, professional wrestling, WWE Tribute to the Troops
FP category for this image
People/Entertainment
Creator
Alexander Vaughn, from Flickr
  • Support as nominator --—Eustress talk 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - His face is not like John Cena. ●Mehran Debate● 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too generic to have much EV for wrestling topics (muscley guy in T-shirt, could be anybody anywhere - you have to already know something about the subject to be able to place it in a wrestling context). And as Mehran said, the face is too distorted to allow recognition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this image is below the Wikipedia:Featured Picture Criteria recommended minimum of 1000 pixels on at least one side of the image, and the face is distorted. Pinetalk 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no excuse for having a pic of a pro wrestler and not showing his hands. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You know what he's doing with his hands, just look at his shirt for a hint Face-wink.svg —Eustress talk 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It's even more of a shame that we can't see them then! J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too small and chopped off, per above essentially. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cutting off the arms (ignoring the facial expression) is too much, particularly for a guy like Cena who is so famous for having nearly horse-like arms. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] The Hooping Life

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 11:31:26 (UTC)

Original – The film poster for the upcoming documentary The Hooping Life, by Amy Goldstein
Reason
High resolution, interesting pose. We rarely have free posters for new or at least recent films, so this is a nice breath of fresh air.
Articles in which this image appears
The Hooping Life, Amy Goldstein
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Amy Goldstein
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: She's really noisy. Does that have an impact on quality considerations, or is that moot because the original is that way? Clegs (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether it's an intentional effect. Brandmeister t 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Image noise is a hurdle for me, and since I can't determine whether it is intentional or just poorly done, I must vote on the default, which is the standard FP guideline of no image noise or graininess. —Eustress talk 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Eustress. Pinetalk 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As with the "Flying Fish poster", this is not a scan but the original poster artwork direct from some designer's PC. The poster is dire. The photo quality is dire. The article this image appears in is dire and appears to contain nothing but the blurb from the back of the DVD. I suspect WP is being used to promote this film. Rather than being "a nice breath of fresh air", something smells here. Colin°Talk 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Entirely possible, but (assuming the film is eventually released) any possible promotion on behalf of the filmmaker is actually beneficial to the encyclopedia. Images, especially posters and whatnot which are the same no matter where they are published, are generally more NPOV than text. I wouldn't mind more people with high quality posters or other works donating them to the encyclopedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your "more NPOV than text"? The poster contains cheery-picked review comments, as all posters do. That's as POV as you can get. Colin°Talk
  • Those are text, not pure images. Note that I said "generally". Images like File:Poster - Gone With the Wind 01.jpg are fairly NPOV in my opinion. For a POV image, we can look at different poses of Barack Obama. A supporter might like his official portrait or one of him working, while a detractor will look for a picture of him scratching his behind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think that is all noise, I think some of that has to do with the background of the poster being textured. I think the poster looks very cool and different than your average everyday movie poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrh180 (talk •

contribs) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is a poor quality poster, apparently made by the film's director for heaven's sake, of an independent, barely feature length documentary of no particular note which will most likely not be shown across any cinema chain in the world, uploaded by a user (possibly the director seeing as how she likes to take a hands on approach to the promotion of her film) who created their/her account purely to write articles about the film in question and it's director/herself (which borders on the blatantly promotional side of resumé-like and also has an unhealthy number of external links), to link to these two articles from as many related articles as possible and to upload this image and one of the documentary's director/herself. Do we really want to indiscriminately promote any movie poster that gets uploaded to Wikipedia just because it is a movie poster and therefore somehow "notable"? God EmperorTalk 19:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] NYPD Ford Crown Victoria

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 05:07:40 (UTC)

Original – A Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor car of the New York City Police Department
Reason
large clear image, in multiple articles, good EV
Articles in which this image appears
Police vehicles in the United States and Canada, Police car, Police transport, Law enforcement, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, Ford Crown Victoria, Law enforcement in the United States, New York City Police Department, United States
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator
Cezary Piwowarski [[10]]
  • Support as nominator --Pinetalk 05:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This photo has been in some articles for more time than other articles, but I'm not expecting anyone to remove this image from enough of these articles to make a significant difference in EV. Pinetalk 05:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose good photo but not very striking. Plus it's arguable that the design schemes of police cars may as a whole be subject to copyright even if none of the individual elements would be. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Being striking is not a requirement for Featured Pictures; please see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Regarding your concern about copyright, wouldn't it be illegal to take photos of lots and lots of vehicles if that was the case? Pinetalk 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
"It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". That's what the FPC say. While I find this to be an effective illustration, certainly enough to be a quality image on Commons, I don't find it compelling. It's just an NYPD car on the street. That's all it wants to tell me, and all it can.

I see others have clarified for you that I did not mean the design of the car itself—as one of the few people on Wikipedia who seems to fully understand our fair use policy, I'm fully aware of the "useful articles" distinction—but what is called the livery of the vehicle (I knew there was a word for it!). Yes, I'm also aware that most of the other elements save the department shield are simple geometric shapes and strings of text that do not constitute a full sentence. However ... consider that this free image I took later became the basis for this copyrighted magazine cover even though the latter arguably has less claim to any individually copyrighted elements. And arguably, painting a police car this way makes it a three-dimensional public work.

But, since there seems to be no U.S. copyright case law I can yet find on the copyright status of vehicle livery with a mix of copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements (French law may be stricter), I won't push this any further. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, mainly on technical grounds. There is a post blocking the tyre of the car and the background is rather busy. Legal considerations are that it may need to have it's license plate blurred as it is still on the road and the design scheme mentioned above. Most cars, if they have a plain paint job, probably don't apply. However, a specific paint design may be copyrightable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I can understand how an elaborate paint job might be copyrightable. However, if paint jobs on police cars are copyrightable, it seems to me that the absurd result is that no photos of police cars would be permitted on Wikipedia. The same would go for uniforms of many kinds of private and government workers. Although I'm not a lawyer, I would think that the design is not sufficiently creative to qualify for copyright protection. Pinetalk 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • About the copyright. The painting is constituted of a blue line and some text, like POLICE (it would be PD-Textlogo, below the threshold of originality) and a logo, which is de minimis. I don't think based on those elements the composition in itself is copyrightable. If you don't share those views, you're free to open a DR in Commons, to settle the matter. --Dereckson (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Just a note that I've also requested comments about the copyright from administrators Moonriddengirl and J Milburn. If others would also like to express views please feel free. Pinetalk 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Note that I said "may". My oppose is mainly for the technical issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Thanks for clarifying. Since there seems to be concern about the copyright I think that it's reasonable to try to get a definitive resolution. I understand why there is concern although my feeling is that in this particular case the paint job isn't copyrightable. Pinetalk 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Aside from the logo, I agree. As noted by Dereckson, in this particular case the logo is probably de minimis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Failing any definitive (and unlikely) evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest all further votes should simply focus on the image and not concern themselves with the copyright mumbo-jumbo. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • Short answer: It's fine. Long answer: IANAL. That said, I think it's alright. Obviously, the car itself is not copyrightable, while the logo is. The paint-job, theoretically, could be. The logo is quite clearly de minimis, and so its inclusion is fine. The paint-job isn't, but it seems simple enough that it would be PD anyway. (To pre-empt, freedom of panorama does not apply here at all.) If there are any issues that could come up here, it is the inclusion of the numberplate, not copyright. There will also presumably be laws about misrepresenting the police (y'know, implying endorsement, suggesting that you are a police officer, that sort of thing) but providing that this is used appropriately in context, that shouldn't be a problem. J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not gonna argue the EV here, but there's too many distracting elements (post in front of car, very busy background) for it to be a FP. Clegs (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] English stonecrop

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2012 at 13:41:26 (UTC)

Original – English stonecrop, Sedum anglicum, on Treffgarne Rocks, Pembrokeshire, Wales.
Alt – English stonecrop, Sedum anglicum, on Treffgarne Rocks, Pembrokeshire, Wales.
Reason
This image exemplifies triumph in adversity, a hardy plant flourishing in a crack in the rock. (This is my first nomination for Featured picture.)
Articles in which this image appears
Sedum anglicum
FP category for this image
plants
Creator
Cwmhiraeth
  • Support as nominator --Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Blown highlights on the petals (they are very white, not textured) and the framing leaves a little to be desired. I'd want some more head room around the plant; right now it seems cut off at both the top and bottom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose both per overexposure. Darkening the picture doesn't fix the loss of detail that happened when the original was overexposed. Clegs (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per above, and because the busy, detailed background prevents the viewer to distinguish the plant from the rock very well. SpencerT♦C 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose both good EV, and the background is OK because it shows this organism in its regular habitat according to the article, but the image lacks sharpness when viewed at full size. Pinetalk 08:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Leaden Flycatcher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:43:42 (UTC)

Original – Leaden Flycatcher (Myiagra rubecula), Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra, Australia
Edit1 – adjusted levels and mild sharpening
Edit 2 - saturation more consistent with original.
Reason
An attractive Flycatcher I spotted in a few places around Canberra. I didn't manage a shot until this male at the Botanic gardens though.
Articles in which this image appears
Leaden Flycatcher
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Has a snapshotty feel and continues the recent trend for over-exposure. [12] is an example of a better composition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The bird is white, not grey. The exposure is correct on a calibrated sRGB display. I was there. Said calibration includes a luminance level (how bright the display is) and ambient illuminance level (how bright the room is). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • We don't even need to talk about the bird, there's plenty of evidence all over the picture that this is overexposed. Whatever your procedure was, that's one smotherbucking skewed histogram you've produced there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per PLW2. I don't feel it has a snapshot look to it, but it is slightly over exposed. Dusty777 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Edit1 uploaded. Adjusted levels per above concerns and added mild sharpening. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Cranking up the saturation isn't going to help matters much. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Didn't touch it if you'd care to actually read my image editing summary stated in three different places. --jjron (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Check the saturations (if you know how), they are different. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Don't care, because as already stated four times, they weren't touched. It seems that both God and Adobe work in mysterious ways ... --jjron (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
            • No, it's just your technical understanding that's lacking. You don't have to actually manually change saturation in order for it to be affected by what you're doing. Think about it, do some experimentation. I know you won't, but don't come back later and say I didn't encourage you to try it for yourself. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
              • You're welcome. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Edit1 after further consideration. --jjron (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 looks good. Pinetalk 10:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit Good shot. Clegs (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Edit Per above Dusty777 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support both with a preference on the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit but I do agree with PLW2 that the edit too saturated and the original is too bright (so am still hoping for edit 2). --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think we're all waiting for Mr. Harrison to redo it from RAW, are we not? Since you were happy enough to support a jpeg version, I've added an appropriate edit. However, the loss of detail on the breast can only be remedied from RAW, so I'm not going to support my own edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed, and yes, for the record, even if we don't get a RAW-remix from JJ, I support Edit 2 as my preference amongst those avaiable. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Preference for Edit 1, Edit 2 is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Preference for Edit 2, Edit 1 is okay. Pinetalk 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Edit1. --jjron (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No preference. Clegs (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In order to break the deadlock, I'm going to say Prefer Edit 1. Clegs (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Original. :P JJ Harrison (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If you still support the original only then I think you're supporting a non-promotion. :) If so we can reconsider. --jjron (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I prefer edit 1 if it has to be one of them. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's rather unnecessary scaremongering. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Myiagra rubecula - Australian National Botanic Gardens edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Craig Johnson

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 18:21:29 (UTC)

Original – American novelist Craig Johnson speaking about his latest books in Médiathèque José Cabanis, Toulouse, France, 2011.
Alt
Alt-2. WB adjustment and selective noise reduction.
Reason
High quality, good portrait of high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Craig Johnson (author)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Guillom
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Support both edits Tomer T (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment White balance is too yellow and needs fixing. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I've added an edit. Tomer T (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit My only remaining gripe is the noise levels. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support edit -- Interesting pose. Edit has better colouring and somehow seems to have less noise. The hand is out of focus, but no biggy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Added Alt-2. I adjusted the WB and applied some selective noise reduction. O.J. (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Either Edit with pref to Alt2. Good portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs)
  • Oops. Yeah, that was me. Clegs (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Still a lot of noise on the underside of his hat. God EmperorTalk 16:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Photo is from an awkward angle, there's a shadow over part of face from hat, head is positioned behind body since leaning back, blurry microphone in foreground is distracting —Eustress talk 02:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Mezcala Bridge 2nd try

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 09:24:56 (UTC)

Original – Mezcala Bridge in Mexico.
Reason
Large image with good EV for the article, already featured on Commons, previous FP nomination failed by only a half vote.
Articles in which this image appears
Mezcala Bridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Jujutacular
  • Support as nominator --Pinetalk 09:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator at commons. Tomer T (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a very good shot. Well positioned and clear. ComputerJA (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The fisheye effect from the stitching is blowing it for me. Also, about a quarter of the image doesn't actually show the bridge. Crisco 1492(talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Great shot. The extra on the left showing the area's scenery is part of what makes it so good, IMO. Clegs (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Crisco, the fisheye effect distorts the view for me. —Eustress talk 02:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Mezcala Bridge - Mexico edit1.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Salvin's Albatross

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 00:59:48 (UTC)

Original – Salvin's Albatross (Thalassarche salvini), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
Prior to this cooperative bird I've only had one or two brief flybys on previous trips. It was once considered a subspecies of the Shy Albatross. Most of this species breed on the Bounty Islands, 670 km south east of New Zealand.
Articles in which this image appears
Salvin's Albatross
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support tail seems a little OOF, but otherwise I like this. Pinetalk 09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. Clegs (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with a question. Is that the original saturation? Interesting colour for the water... Of course, last time I was on the open(-ish) sea it was in the Sunda Strait which was more light teal in colour. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite natural, and mostly a reflection of the sky. Air pollution would most likely mean that Indonesia's sky is a different colour. I think the significant water depth difference (several kilometers vs tens of meters) could help a colour change too - it is easy to stir up sediment in shallow water. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah. As I was between southern Kalianda and Sebuku, it was much shallower. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support very good, has this been nominated before? --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No, but I have nominated one or two other images of different species with a similar composition before. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Thalassarche salvini - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] White-necked Petrel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:04:16 (UTC)

Original – White-necked Petrel (Pterodroma cervicalis), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
This image is a little smaller than some others that I nominated (the bird was further away). However, this is the only confirmed sighting of this bird within Tasmanian waters, and this, and one other photo that I collected are the only images on commons of this species.
Articles in which this image appears
White-necked Petrel
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Good shot. Question should the black be a little darker, or is the bird more of a white and medium gray? Never seen this species (they don't make it to the eastern US), but to my eyes, the pictures looks like it could use a little more contrast. Clegs (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Which bit of the plumage are you referring to? Apart from when breeding on a few islands, it is an open sea bird, and highly unlikely to be seen from land anywhere, not just the eastern US :). JJ Harrison (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very good, at 1.7 MP is the resolution lower than your usual? Not that it matters. --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Almost an abstraction ... I caught myself wondering what company logo this was. Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Daniel. The composition with the sea and the angle of the wings is very pleasing. --Colin°Talk 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support All reason above. Alborzagros (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pterodroma cervicalis - SE Tasmania.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Canberra Capitals vs Logan Thunder

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:06:11 (UTC)

Original – WNBL teams Logan Thunder in white and Canberra Capitals in blue battle for the ball in a game on 20 January 2012
Crop
Reason
Per the other basketball nom.
Articles in which this image appears
Women's National Basketball League, Logan Thunder,
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment While this has good EV, it lacks impact. A tighter crop around the players might help - all the empty seats in the background detract from the action the photo shows (though they do sadly illustrate the difficulty elite female sports teams have attracting crowds). Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Had a go at a crop. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Support crop Good quality and good EV (as noted above, the somewhat barren background sadly adds to the EV here). Nice work. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree--cropping out some of the dead space at the bottom might add to the BANG factor.
  • Support crop -- Impressive, especially since you were close to 100 metres (330 ft) away from the action when taking this shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Not that far. EXIF says 25.3 meters ;). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Odd, it looked bigger. Either way, good shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support crop. Excellent action shot. Clegs (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: Is this during an actual game? I'm just wondering because I don't see any fans in the seats... SpencerT♦C 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but most of the fans were on either side the court, rather than at the ends. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Exactly. By my count the arena wasn't even half full. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unclear what is going on in this photo and who the Thunder are playing against. —Eustress talk 15:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Hiram Wesley Evans

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 03:02:17 (UTC)

Original – Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan Hiram Wesley Evans in Washington, D.C. on 8 August 1925
Edit – Cropped to focus on the subject
Reason
High quality and resolution, illustrative of both the main subject and his position in the KKK
Articles in which this image appears
Hiram Wesley Evans, Grand Wizard
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator
National Photo Company, restored by Crisco 1492
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm gunna make a very unpopular move, against pretty much everything WP stands for, and oppose due to the subject. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering we promoted this image of lynching (very graphic, so it'll never be on the front page), I don't think this is a criteria. I agree that we should not look like we are supporting the KKK, but we are also an encyclopedia. The Klan is, unfortunately, something we cover. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the image also should not be on the main page if it gets promoted (like lynching and some other). Brandmeister t 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose both on composition grounds. The background is too distracting. Essentially its a snapshot taken in 1925. Old yes, but a snapshot is still a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. Sorry, but I don't see this as a very compelling photograph, with a strange severity in the focus contrast between the subject and the rather busy background (and the crop only calls more attention to that severity), nor does it have particular historical value, since it doesn't illustrate anything in particular happening. In defense of Adam above, I think the comparison to the lynching picture is not very apt; that picture shows an example of an event that played a huge role in American history; this one is just a guy in a costume. Chick Bowen 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 02:59:36 (UTC)

Original – A Polet Antonov An-124 landing at Sheremetyevo Airport
Reason
Extremely high quality image of this aircraft in landing configuration which is prominently placed in the aircraft article infobox
Articles in which this image appears
Antonov An-124
FP category for this image
link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)
Creator
Sergey Kustov
  • Support as nominator --Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. High quality, excellent representation of this aircraft. Clegs (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this could do with reframing to give it a bit more lead room. No land marks visible and a uniform background, so no problem with that. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support good EV, high clarity, large photo. Pinetalk 11:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice image, good quality. Nice to see what it looks like before landing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Great EV. Great picture. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075 in flight 28-Jul-2011.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Worldwide time zones

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 10:54:13 (UTC)

Original – Map of the world's Time Zones. The explanation for the codes is near the lower left corner of the image.
Alternative.
Reason
High EV, meets size criteria, good level of detail
Articles in which this image appears
Time Zone
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator
Phoenix B 1of3
  • Support as nominator --Pinetalk 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: some of the numbers (esp. around Nepal and Myanmar) are very hard to read. Any chance we could get a larger version? Does that work with PNGs? Clegs (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Added alternative. This one is larger and more aesthetically pleasing. O.J. (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Definitely alt much better than the original nomination. I think the date line could be better emphasized and labelled. It misses Antarctica, and does not indicate territories with daylight saving time. Oppose original for dizzying colour scheme, inconsistent font size and lack of detail due to limited resolution. --ELEKHHT 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Diagrams like these are much better as SVGs. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've been thinking for a while that some version of a timezone map needs featuring, but I don't think it's either of these for the various reasons already mentioned above, esp. Elekhh and Makeem. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Alt is out of date, with Samoa and American Samoa on different sides of the date line. Russia also changed something recently, IIRC, I'm not sure if this is correct here either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Askalan (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Original for poor use of colours and factual inaccuracies and missing information (Keeling Is.; Tokelau; Lord Howe, Norfolk, and Chatham Is.; Maldives; and BIOT ) alt for lacking Antarctica and not being SVG. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Suspended nominations

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

[edit] Aerial "Rote Nase"

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2012 at 15:51:16 (UTC)

One of the Rote Nase cable cars on its way up the mountain from Hohtälli. The cable car system was built in 1986.
Reason
{{{reason}}}
Articles in which this image appears
Rote Nase
FP category for this image
{{{category}}}
Creator
SteGrifo27
  • Support as nominator --SteGrifo27 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Does this appear in any articles? It needs to do so for a week before nominating. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks like a WIP that ended up here. Speedy close? Pinetalk 09:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added it to the article on Rote Nase, but the article is just a stub. It's today's POTD at the commons, which is probably how it got here. I might suggest suspending it for the necessary week to see if the article can be expanded and if the picture sticks, and then evaluating it as a normal nom. Clegs (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I added as much info as I could find online without being able to speak German. Updated the picture caption to be in line with the info. Clegs (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)





Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=480766127"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages