Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

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

Promoting an image

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

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

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

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

Delisting an image

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

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

How to comment for Delist Images

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

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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

Contents


To see recent changes, purge the page cache.


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit


Current nominations[edit]

Pair of Mandarin ducks[edit]

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

Original – A pair of Mandarin ducks at Martin Mere, Lancashire, UK; males are larger than females and have considerably brighter plumage
Reason
FP on commons, lead image in the bird article, can't think of a better way to illustrate sexual dimorphism
Articles in which this image appears
Mandarin duck, sexual dimorphism
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Francis C. Franklin
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)




Sunita Williams[edit]

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

Original – Former NASA astronaut Sunita Williams, She holds the records for longest single space flight by a woman (195 days), total spacewalks by a woman (seven), and most spacewalk time for a woman (50 hours, 40 minutes).
Reason
good quality, high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Sunita Williams, List of female astronauts, List of spacewalkers and more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator
NASA




Wells Cathedral Interior Set[edit]

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

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




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

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

Original – The ruins of Fountains Abbey, a former Cistercian monastary in Yorkshire, England.
Reason
It's an interesting and aesthetic view of the ruins of Fountains Abbey.
Articles in which this image appears
Fountains Abbey, Cistercian architecture, Cistercians, Abbeys Amble, Henry Murdac, History of Yorkshire, Grade I listed buildings in Harrogate (borough) and 6 more lists.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image looks very flat. This one does not scream Feature to me. It actually looks very much like a typical tourist photo.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)




John William Waterhouse - The Lady of Shalott[edit]

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

Not for nomination - AutoContrast edit in LCH space
Reason
John William Waterhouse's The Lady of Shalott (1888) was one of Sir Henry Tate's founding gifts to the Tate Gallery and has always been one of Britain's favourite paintings.
Articles in which this image appears
The Lady of Shalott
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
John William Waterhouse
  • It's a Google Art Project work. At 100% it looks fine. Its the image at 100% we should be judging not its thumbnail. If you take the virtual tour in the Google Cultural Institution you can see the painting as hung is naturally a rather sombre one. The thumbnail is actually missing some 20% of the lighter tones in RGB colour space. If you try to adjust it with the naive techniques used in the Romano painting nominated here you get the same sort of hideous result you see there. I've uploaded an Autocontrast edit in LCH space which editors coming after me can use as a thumbnail if they like. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Without being too judgmental, I would rather you stopped accusing people of judging "the thumbnail". I am familiar with this painting. It is way darker than the original and is just not Feature quality to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)




William Crooks[edit]

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

Original – The William Crooks, the first locomotive to operate in Minnesota.
Reason
A rather good illustration of a historic locomotive, from the period when it was in use. Identified by an expert on the subject, We hope, and the identification definitely does seem to check out.
Articles in which this image appears
William Crooks (Could probably go into a few others, like Swinburne, Smith and Company)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator
National Photo Company, restoration by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yes please! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Of historical interest (particularly if one grew up in Minnesota).
This early 20th C. photo of the 1861 locomotive seems slightly canted to the right — straighten? Sca (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Any other rotation requires cropping. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly why I don't like the straightened version. The gentleman in the far left is cut in half in that version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hence the crop/rotation I chose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)




Selwyn College Chapel, University of Cambridge[edit]

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

Reason
This is a set nomination of two images, showing the view from both ends of the chapel. I think either image would be of sufficient quality individually but as a set, they add slightly more EV. It is the interior of the chapel of this nomination.
Articles in which this image appears
Selwyn College, Cambridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 00:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support set. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I find the second image more brighter esp. the roof, the first one looks dark. ///EuroCarGT 03:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's somewhat expected, given they're views from different directions. I think that's due to the way the light is entering the chapel. You can see that the direct sunlight is entering through the glass at the rear of the chapel in the second image. There seems to be some complex reflections and interactions though, that make different areas darker and lighter. All I can say is that they were processed the same way with the same exposures. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support set -- Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)




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

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

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




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

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

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




Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer[edit]

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

OriginalAlbert Einstein 1921 by Ferdinand Schmutzer
Alt 1 - Restored version by Adam Cuerden
Reason
One of the few early photographs of Einstein available. Rediscovered in 2001 by the estate of Ferdinand Schmutzer. The image is being renominated following the resolution of a copyright problem which got in the way of the last nomination. I have chosen a sepia print because Schmutzer's 1921 etching (which incidentally 'publishes' the image under US case law thus making it PD regardless of other copyright considerations) is a sepia aquatint.
Articles in which this image appears
Albert Einstein and History of Germany (highest EV)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator
Ferdinand Schmutzer
  • Yes, that's right. It's the nomination I mentioned above that got involved with a nomination for deletion on copyright concerns. That proved to be a somewhat complicated affair that took some time to resolve. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying Coat! ///EuroCarGT 04:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)




Nighthawks[edit]

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

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




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

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

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




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

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

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




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

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

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




Great Mosque of Central Java (Interior)[edit]

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

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




Bixby letter[edit]

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

Original – This is a widely published lithographic facsimile of the Bixby letter, sent to a Mrs. Brixby who reported losing five children in the American Civil War. The original letter is lost.
Reason
High quality scan of a facsimile of a notable (now-lost) letter signed by Abraham Lincoln. Besides, we can't let Adam have the whole Civil War category to himself now, can we?
Articles in which this image appears
Bixby letter
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War
Creator
Signed Abraham Lincoln, but some think John Hay penned the letter
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from offer your support to a letter so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the community who may yet have a chance to learn of the this power literary piece. I pray that our Heavenly Father may leave you only the cherished memory of the nomination, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have successfully beaten Adam to the punch. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Not overwhelmed by the EV of this I have to say. Would be happy to support a genuine autograph of Lincoln, and autographs in general. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Who said this had EV only as a sample of Lincoln's handwriting? That's a dime a dozen, almost. This has EV as a facsimile of the original Bixby letter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Featured? My understanding is that it's a facsimile of a forgery, likely by John Hay, who provided one of the Gettysburg address it seems. I did look at the category. I just can't see taking its place there. Not opposing, just explaining why I'm not supporting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
        • CN on "forgery", please. Read Hay's article. Current scholarship is that either Lincoln wrote the letter himself, as generally held, or that Hay wrote the letter (i.e. wrote the original letter) in Lincoln's name as part of his duties as Lincoln's secretary. No matter who penned it, the Bixby letter is notable (i.e. has an article on it) and this is an almost exact reproduction of it. The only image that would have more EV in the Bixby letter article is a scan of the original, which no longer exists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
          • CN? Whether by Lincoln or Hay, the origin of the facsimile is unknown and plausibly it's a forgery. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Also, for the category: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History is home to the scan of the embossed copy of the Declaration of Independence and the check used for the Alaska Purchase, suggesting documents go in the history category. Since we have one exclusively for the American Civil War, I used that category for this document (which is from the Civil War, after all). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Not convinced. It's a condolence letter. A high resolution scan of a original in Lincoln's handwriting (you say his autographs are two a penny) would have EV. A forged (by common consent) facsimile of a particular example doesn't IMHO. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per TomStar81. Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason why I can't have the category to myself. Support. Whether real or forgery, this specific lithographic reproduction is discussed in the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Remember the point of FPs is to add value to articles. This can be a specific section of an article, such as the long section on whether this print was a forgery or not. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To highlight images that add value to articles. The van Meegeren forgeries are notable and an image of one of them no doubt worthy of a place in the Vermeer article. But if such an image was made a Featured Picture candidate I would certainly question its EV. Same here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I... really don't see how your logic works there - it's notable, but when it gets here, it's not? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • First of all this is going to be my last remark here. It's just a comment saying that, personally for me, I can't see its EV. That's what we are after here, EV not notability. That's the criteria, notability after all being a given, or should be, if an item is to appear in the encyclopaedia at all. For me a reproduction of genuine letter of condolence written by Abraham Lincoln would have EV, but this facsimile of a forgery doesn't pique my interest at all. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)




Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel)[edit]

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

Original – Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel)
Reason
Iconic. A 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file.
Articles in which this image appears
The Scream, List of paintings by Edvard Munch, List of most expensive paintings
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Edvard Munch
  • Support as nominator – Iconic great granddaddy of all drama royals. I just know it will receive generous support here. This is the version that sold for $119,922,500 a couple of years back. Two failed nominations for the Oslo version. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey, I know that look! Thats the "Da $#@% you mean the USA is 17 trillion dollars in debt!?" look. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thought about it, but nah ... bought myself a new yacht instead — But it's so stunningly beautiful!
  • Comment — Again? Sca (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a different version from the Oslo versions nominated before 1 first, 2 second. Second time round you opposed on the ground it had been published so often it's become almost a cliché, but not many clichés sell for $119,922,500. On both occasions the stumbling block was the lack of resolution, and indeed that won't be fixed until the holding museums issue high resolution images. But this was sold at auction and the on-line catalogue made available a 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file. That's plenty of resolution enough. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Money conquers all. Sca (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case the price tag came in at about $25,000 a square centimetre - isn't that just amazing? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The British Guiana 1c magenta on the other hand works out at about $1 million a square centimetre. Eat your heart out, Ed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ya know, that stamp might have a chance at passing FPC too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support, but I've got my eye on a little blonde bombshell I fancy next. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wish this was better used in the article. Discussed in text, but relegated to a gallery. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
As an alt., how about a rectangular background detail showing just the two men on the bridge (or pier) and the sailboat in the water? Sca (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Would be happy to support. I always thought this was a bridge too, but in fact the location appears to be a road above Copenhagen harbour according to this interesting blog I linked in to to the article this morning. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: First this does not appear to have a free license or a clear title, at least for Wikimedia Commons. Secondly, compared to the two earlier submissions; this image is quite grainy, especially along the roadway or bridge (whichever). I find that an unpleasant and worrisome feature for a pastel. It now appears speckled. The image is not restful in any regard, so smooth colours at least make it tolerable to look at. I actually prefer choice one, which has been earlier reviewed and not promoted. Fylbecatulous talk 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean PD and The Scream is certainly PD in the US. It's true it can't go onto Commons until the beginning of next year when Munch comes into PD in Europe, but I'm not aware that's one of the criteria. First nom raised Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, one of the lamer copyright dramas in recent years, but it's unassailable that The Scream was 'published' within the terms of the Berne convention (i.e. made available for copying) before 1923.For example it was made available as a limited edition of prints in 1895. As for the resolution, it's at the mark and pastels at the mark 'are' 'speckled', that's the nature of their mark. Have a look at this Degas pastel Commons:File:Edgar Degas - Young Woman in Blue - Google Art Project.jpg. Why should you be worried about that? I should think it extremely unlikely that a Sotheby's catalogue for a work expected to sell in the high tens of millions of dollars carried a substandard image. Pretty sure at any rate we are not going to get better any time soon. Nomination 1 was for an oil painting and it failed on resolution concerns. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can vouch that this is acceptable for hosting locally on the English Wikipedia as well. Don't get what is meant by "speckles"/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Like speckled eggs: Bing has many images. Here is one not so well defined: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Tern_Nest_with_Three_Eggs_(2)_(3593033259).jpg. Good for eggs; not so good for images unless graininess is required. Fylbecatulous talk 13:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the demanding (and discerning) world of the visual arts, Fylbe. I still can't follow your objection to the image here. There's no noise in that image. That 'speckling' is merely the mark pastel chalks make on paper especially prepared to 'take' the chalk. Really I think you should strike your oppose here unless you can make a more substantial case. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Fylbecatulous: I think it's disappointing that you haven't responded to a request to clarify your issues. I take it that means you don't have any further issues, and since the objections you raised have been adequately explained by myself and by an administrator at the forum, I think in the circumstances it would be courteous to strike your oppose. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Really, I do not intend to strike my oppose. I believe it would be courteous to now leave me alone. I am an editor worthy to cast a vote here and it has been thusly done. It's disappointing that this process is becoming an unpleasant experience. I speak for myself, of course. Others may speak on their own behalf. Fylbecatulous talk 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Coat of Many Colours: As a relative newcomer to Featured picture nominations, I have read the exchanges above with interest. It is clear that you are all quite knowledgeable, but if the discussion takes on the appearance of a group of insiders making the decisions, newcomers will be deterred from voicing their opinions. Coat of Many Colours, I would be interested to know why you feel it is important that User:Fylbecatulous strike his opposing vote. It seems to me that if the image is worthy, it will receive additional supporting votes which will outweigh one opposing vote, and I think time ought to be allowed for others to see the image and express their opinions (especially considering that this is the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere and many people are on vacation). Asking an editor to strike his vote is kind of like saying, "Because you got one or two things factually wrong, your vote is now invalid", and also kind of like, "You should have checked your facts before expressing an opinion here". That sends the message to potential participants that their vote will not be counted if they don't get their information right, which could be a deterrent to participation. If editors sense a kind, tolerant, and generous attitude, this could be a pleasant experience for all and an opportunity for editors to learn something new. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Corinne. Indeed I've noticed you around and I left you a message here saying how much I liked your User page. In this case we have a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate. It would likewise be kind,tolerant and generous of him simply to admit his mistakes, embarrassing and possibly unpleasant though that might be, and move on. That's how I see it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Hafs' trusty old DC
@Fylbecatulous: I'm sorry to hear that your experience here has been unpleasant. If you could be more specific I should be happy to help in any way I can. You will forgive me, but you are a new contributor here are you not? It's difficult to judge from your contribution record because you are such a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, but that does seem to be so - that you made your first contribution here supporting Hafspajen's recent School of Raphael nomination, which I opposed on the grounds that it suffers a pronounced yellow colour cast on account of its processing (see thumbnails)? As an experienced Wikipedian you should know the etiquette about newbies joining forums. Really I must ask you to reconsider. When I make a mistake in this forum, I courteously acknowledge that I have so and make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right. With respect I courteously suggest that you ought to as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Coat of Many Colours:. Surely, you are not serious. It appears my first participation was to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hans_Baluschek_-_Arbeiterstadt_(1920).jpg, involving a different nominator. Now I feel that I am being subjected to most unfriendly interrogation. Whether or not you believe this is to be a forum, it is still pertaining to Wikipedia content. All the best. Fylbecatulous talk 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes excellent nomination which I warmly supported as well, but that's still only less than a fortnight ago. I think it would be generous, tolerant and kind of you to admit your mistake here and strike your oppose. I can't see what's unpleasant about that. Only a little prick to one'e sense of self-esteem surely? And then you can be confident of my good will. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
C.o.m.c. - you will forgive me, but you are a new contributor here also, are you not? It was 23 June 2014 you made your first edit here. Just about a month ago. Drmies, please tell this editor not to intimidate other editors just because they vote for a nomination s/he is vigourosly opposing for reasons og her/ his own. Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I have to remind you that in the fact Crisco 1492 also votes support on the nomination you obviously trying to destroy. Just because you, C.o.m.c. doesn't think that nomination is OK; that doesn't mean that you have to put down this much energy on it - opposing it EVEN here, posting those painting even here. A simple oppose would have been quite enough, and in that case the whole thing wouldn't blow up like this. I think you go too far now. Crisco 1492, since when are we telling to editors what to do and how to vote on this project? Hafspajen (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Coat of Many Colours:. I have read the guidelines for this project page. I cannot find where it states that a nominator may hassle a commentor into striking what might be considered a misguided vote. However I do see: Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. Since you allege that I am a newcomer and to that I agree, Please apologise for your incivility, biting of a newcomer and commenting about me: ie In this case we have a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate. It would likewise be kind,tolerant and generous of him simply to admit his mistakes, embarrassing and possibly unpleasant though that might be, and move on. You surely misread me as to my motives. After my requested apology is given, I shall be confident of your good will. Fylbecatulous talk 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking you to concede what is clearly the case, that your objection had no merit i.e. to say there is no copyright issue and there is no problem with the image. In such a case it would be a courtesy to strike the oppose, especially when requested. I would not hesitate to do that. However it's quite plain you won't do me that courtesy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Coat of Many Colours:, @Fylbecatulous:, @Hafspajen: It is clear that feelings have been ruffled on all sides. Coat of Many Colours, you didn't answer my question in my comment, above, as to why it is so important to you that Fylbecatulous's comment and vote be stricken. Don't you expect more editors to come along, see the image, and vote? I think your nomination has a very good chance of passing, but if for some reason it doesn't, you can always nominate it again in a few weeks or months. I think that asking someone to strike his or her comment and vote can be perceived as bossy, as if you were the page's director, and some people don't like to be told what to do, or even asked to do something when in reality they perceive that they are being told what to do. Unless that is customary on Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidate pages, perhaps you ought not to ask people to strike their comments and votes. I've seen many other support-oppose discussions on WP FP Candidate pages where there is a polite exchange of concerns and information among a number of editors. I don't remember seeing, "Now that you realize you were wrong, would you kindly strike your vote?" On the other hand, I have seen votes stricken with a strike-through line. Presumably, the editor had changed his/her mind after learning something. If that is the custom here, we need to observe it.

Fylbecatulous is right in saying that you should try to limit your comments to the image and not focus on the editor. Saying in a place where he and others can read it that he is "a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate" exacerbated the situation. He was already upset before that, and this made him more upset. He may have seemed "unwilling to cooperate" when he failed to strike his comment and his vote, but it is clear he was upset with your request.

I think that if an editor constantly makes comments at WP FP Candidate discussions that are full of wrong information or express irrelevant concerns, more than one other editor will probably say something to him/her. But no one can accuse a new editor of constantly doing anything if he/she has not been editing very long.

Coat of Many Colours, I myself have made the mistake of thinking that if something would be easy for me to do, it ought to be easy for others to do. You wrote, above, "When I make a mistake in this forum, I courteously acknowledge that I have so and make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right." While I agree that part of polite discussion is to admit when one is wrong, it isn't always necessary to do that. One can simply desist from continuing to argue one's point of view. However, you wanted Fylbecatulous to "make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right", which to you would have been for him/her to strike his/her vote. You may have felt that was the appropriate action, but Fylbecatulous may not have felt it was necessary. That doesn't mean he/she was uncooperative, and to accuse him/her of being uncooperative made things worse.

Sometimes, it is not what you say that causes problems, but how you say it. Sometimes, it is what you say that causes the problem. I'm not 100% sure which of these is the case here, but perhaps we can put this behind us and focus on the image. You're all so bright, and I have enjoyed reading your comments and learning from them, and perhaps others have, also. CorinneSD (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne. You are brave. Maybe you are right - C.o.m.c. is affraid that more editors to come along, see the image, and vote... Now when this nomination so effectively is killed, spitted on and dragged in the mud - what an annoyance would be if two more headstrong editors would come by and vote in the very last 24 hours, hahaha what a dissapoitment that would be, that would be really funny... Well, Insha'Allah, - "os mynn Duw". Hafspajen (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: Thank you for your remarks Corinne. I'm sure that's a sensible analysis. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So here's where Fylbecatulous gets to speak for myself. Again, my motives have not been accurately described by others, but thank you, CorrineSD, for quite kind and affirmative comments on my behalf. Really appreciated. My reason for not reverting or striking my vote, (which was cast in the light of the best knowledge I have about the criteria, as dim as it may be), has nothing to do with defiance, embarrassment, pride, being upset, whatever. Here's the thing. There has become a perception by myself from lurking and from others who participate frequently; that the atmosphere is recently becoming difficult, unfriendly, snarky, and argumentative. A hostile environment where there used to be civility. This exchange for this submission is just one example.
I am simply standing my ground and therefore not reinforcing what I perceive to be bad behaviour towards another editor (in this case, me), (but that has been duly noted by others as well). If I give in to being bullied or coerced and pinged or talked about in a bad light, and strike my vote, made in good faith, due to feeling intimidated; I have just reinforced the negative behaviour that we wish would go away. So I do not question authority, so if one of those admins happens along that keep getting pinged to this thread; and requests me to amend or strike my comments or vote, I shall do so on that basis, Otherwise, the nominator and one who has been hassling me, is no more an authority than I, so I intend to ignore. Perhaps an admin would also remove the two unrelated images that were added to make fun of Hafspajen's entry elsewhere. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)





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

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 04:20:41 (UTC)

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




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

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 01:41:22 (UTC)

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




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

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 23:39:37 (UTC)

Original – Auguste Renoir - Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette
Detail
Reason
One of Renoir's most iconic images. A Google Art Project Gigapixel image (638 MP)
Articles in which this image appears
Bal du moulin de la Galette
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Pierre-Auguste Renoir

(edit conflict)*Oppose - Now this was my nomination, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Le Moulin de la Galette.jpg. And oppose for the same reason I withdrawn MY nomination of this earlier today - I am pretty sure that the colours are not like it should be. Hafspajen (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • How is this different from the one nominated by Hafspajen? I am confused: two of the same images up at FPC? Drmies (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is exact the same picture, but file has more pixels - and the colors have a greenish hue - versus original that has a different - pinkish hue, very much like like here. Hafspajen (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I spent significant time contributing to the last nomination. The original file nominated was effectively unsourced (i.e. sourced to the museum but the actual image significantly edited - this happens all the time). I noted that with a neutral "Comment". Another long-standing editor then opposed the nomination on the grounds that it lacked sufficient pixels given the size of the painting. At that point I proposed the Google Gigapixel image as an alternative and constructively (and cooperatively) debated the subsequent objection about the colour values. Late yesterday evening I was astonished to discover all that significant input "withdrawn".
I think there is a debate that should be had here about the authenticity of so-called "Featured" images of works of art. You will forgive me for reaching the conclusion that this is not the place to pursue the debate. I am simply not prepared to invest the time when I am treated like this. Over at Commons I made a nomination Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#File:Johannes_Vermeer_-_Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring_-_Maurtishuis_670.jpg regarding the so-called "Dutch Mona Lisa", one of the best loved paintings in the world and certainly by me from my very earliest childhood, nevertheless a painting whose "Featured" image on Commons is an absolute travesty of the original, frankly a parody, which I think effectively encapsulates the problems we are facing with these Featured pictures.
I shall continue to vote here. I rather enjoy looking at the "own work" images uploaded by editors here and would certainly wish to support their efforts. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
As for this image, all I can say is that the thumbnail does indeed suck , but when I get it into Windows Live Photo Gallery screen size it's absolutely beautiful and as I mentioned VintPrint do it for their poster. The only pity is that it won't zoom for me because the file is far too large, and in fact I don't have any applications that will accept it. I don't know why thumbnails of these Gigapixel images suck so. I have suggested what seems to me a sensible workround in LCH space, rather better I suggest than DCoetzee's Photoshop Curves edits, which introduce unpleasant colour casts as they must when you are equalising 10% or more of the histogram in RGB space in this way, but I didn't receive a single constructive remark about that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Of course one would be so very grateful and obliged were the d'Orsay version I nominate here to receive support. Thank you all so very much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Hey...whoever took the photograph did their best and it just isn't good enough. This artist's use of color can be difficult to capture in the low lighting of a museum. Trust me...I know this from experience.[1]. Perhaps one day when working with GLAM we can get better images but we can't just hand this a Feature status because it has more pixels. As Hafspajen states, this image has a greenish hue and I also note is far too dark.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless it's the image used by VintPrint and Google. It's the thumbnail that looks green. The image itself at 100% is stunning. Remember the thumbnailing process is a simple algorithm that averages pixel values. It may not be equally effective for all images. It's the image we should be judging and not its thumbnail. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added a detail from the original so editors can judge closer to the mark (it still needs to be opened). An interesting feature of this painting is that it depicts both natural and artificial light (gaslight), a combination I suspect we are not too familiar with today. I should think that's where most of the grief is coming from here. To repeat, my comment (it was not an oppose) about the previous nomination was simply that the image was unsourced. i.e. to say it plainly was not the museum image as the file claimed. I simply can't find a plausible candidate for the original image nominated. At least a couple of websites suggest that is in fact an image of an earlier version auctioned 1990. I've ordered the relevant catalogue and will upload a (sourced) image of that in time.
Done my best here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, what I'm suggesting is that Renoir might well have laid down a thin glaze of a greenish hue to suggest gaslight. If that is so, then the presence of that in every single pixel might well get concentrated down in the thumbnail. To repeat, it's the original we should be judging, not the thumbnail. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems to assume a great deal. Your argument does not convince me but mainly because you are emphasizing things that are not relevant and are just guesses. Having VintPrint and Google use this image is not a standard for feature Picture. I would like to see a true "own work" uploaded. Where is this painting located now?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I've already made the tests and I can confirm that is what seems to be the problem here, on the assumption of course that Renoir did lay down the sort of glaze I suggest. But I don't know this painting at all, though I must have walked past it literally dozens, even hundreds, of times. I don't really care very much for Renoir.
There are two versions of this painting. An earlier smaller version of the painting which I gather is not so atmospheric nor well defined. This is the version that was formerly in the Whitney collection and was sold for a record price in 1990 to a Japanese shipping magnate and since, allegedly, by private sale to a Swiss collector. I've never seen this painting, nor can I find a convincigly sourced image of it and as far as I know it hasn't been exhibited since 1990. I've ordered the 1990 sale catalogue and if possible will upload a scan to Commons.
The other version is in the Musee D'orsay. It's an exact copy in every detail of the original, but it's larger. In the course of what I took to be a perfectly ordinary discussion in the last nomination, I gave the Google Virtual Tour location of this painting, which provoked the nominating editor to withdraw his nomination. Here is is again, though you have to walk a couple of rooms to the left of this point (to room 32, fifth floor)Ah it's more complicated. Take the lift to the fifth floor. Which room you end up in seems pretty random. In the strip of thumbnails below, click on Luncheon on the Grass (nominated below). That will take you to the room with Whistler's Mother. Now walk two rooms to the left. It looks absolutely stunning under a combinatation of the gallery lights and natural light coming in from the vaulting above, and you can see that its general impression from a distance is indeed somewhat greenish, though not as pronounced as the thumbanail, and certainly not the pinkish version originally supplied in the last nomination. As I pointed out in a *comment* (I wasn't opposing) that image is effectively unsourced as it's given as the museum image in the description, but plainly isn't their image.
Regarding your comment about assumptions, if that's a reference to gaslight, then that's not an assumption. The museum description confirms it as image bathed in both natural and artificial light: "The study of the moving crowd, bathed in natural and artificial light, is handled using vibrant, brightly coloured brushstrokes".
I hope this is useful and that at least this time my remarks will be allowed to stand. I can't but help thinking I'm on a hiding to nothing here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way I like "own works" too. I always link my Commons file descriptions to a framed work if I can find one. I know a couple of Flickr editors who upload excellent images, but they're "all rights reserved". As a general proposition own works can't compete with gallery images, because flashlight and ancillary lighting isn't usually permitted. Coat of Many Colours (talk)


  • I had a very valid reason witdrawing my nomination. This picture, that I actually had withdrawn, is too dark. Impressionists painted sunshine. This PDF say that he painted it in the afrernoon. Most painters wouldn't try such a complicated subject to paint both artifical and sunlight (that would make the shadows look like if they were comming from several directions) - and the impessionist most certainly wouldn't. They wanted to catch the light and the sunshine of the moment. And, of course - with so much sunshine one wouldn't be able to see if the lights from the artificial light either, anyway - if the artifical lights were on - because the sunshine is always stronger. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The museum description confirms it as an image bathed in both natural and artificial light: "The study of the moving crowd, bathed in natural and artificial light, is handled using vibrant, brightly coloured brushstrokes". Not doing very well the museum, is it? Not only does it give the painting the wrong colours, it doesn't even describe it properly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)





Luncheon on the Grass[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 19:59:36 (UTC)

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




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

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 13:53:50 (UTC)

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




Northern mockingbird[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 07:16:18 (UTC)

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





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

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2014 at 14:40:20 (UTC)

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




The Fall of the Rebel Angels[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 17:10:52 (UTC)

OriginalThe Fall of the Rebel Angels, a 1562 painting by Flemish artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder.
Not nominated - illustrating lightening in LCH colour space.
Alternate illustration of possible lightening; exposure +0.4, levels -4
Reason
One of those astonishing paintings, somewhat Boschian (although the contrast and lighting here look better, I hope Google Art didn't mess something again).
Articles in which this image appears
The Fall of the Rebel Angels (Bruegel), List of paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, War in Heaven
FP category for this image
Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Pieter Bruegel the Elder
  • It looks much better viewed 100% (it's amazingly detailed). But I have to admit it does lack presence. The category image Commons:File:Pieter Bruegel I-Fall of rebel Angels (merge).jpg is very attractive, but is surely too blue and lacks resolution. This thing is 450 years old. I doubt it looks as fresh as that. But I've never seen it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Confirmed as too dark. The 1280px thumbnail has >10% of the histogram completely unused. Samsara (FA  FP) 14:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right. The same with the Raphael images recently nominated here at at Commons. The trouble is that darkening is the result of aging, not (say) underexposure in a photograph, and can't be corrected digitally (nor in reality can it indeed be in a photograph as, unlike overexposure, the information was never there in the first place). So I would say in a Featured Picture we shouldn't be adjusting, unless we have good reason to suppose it's an artefact of the image rather than the photograph itself. But, picking up on a remark by DCoetzee below, I do think there's a case for doing that so as top provide thumbnails and the like. But these really shouldn't, in my opinion, be nominated as "Featured", and I think better reduced in the first place to avoid that. This evening I'll have a go at that to indicate what I have in mind and post back here. As to whether rather dull images such as we have here for nomination should really be "Featured", I do think that's a question to be debated another day perhaps.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've thumbnailed a version lightened in LCH space using the Nikon Capture X2 AutoContrast tool. The idea is to adjust the contrast without affecting the hues or saturation of the colours. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The version on the official site of the Belgian Royal Museums of Fine Arts may be correct, it's closer to the Google Art version rather than that currently in the article on painting. Brandmeistertalk 20:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I noticed that too. Incredibly hard to find that website by the way. I wanted this page in connection with the article start for Little Girl in a Blue Armchair I provided, but it drove me absolutely bonkers finding it. I do think the Google image you nominated is worth Featuring. It's unfortunate that thumbnail size it's pretty unprepossessing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So a very light edit, perhaps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No! Inauthentic WP:FP?#8. There's no reason to suppose the Google Art Project image is anything other than an accurate (faithful representation) of the painting as it is today and on the contrary every reason to suppose that it is because it's hard to imagine Google deliberately providing an image misrepresenting the painting in such an unattractive way. There is, as acknowledged by me above and remarked by DCoetzee below in connection with his image, a place for retouching the image in thumbnails and the like, but not here as expressly envisaged by the guidelines. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As with many other Google art scans, it is overly dark, which reduces the EV. This is fixable without the "auto-levels" you claim are manifested in every digital attempt at restoration. I don't think any serious editor is stupid enough to just click "auto-levels". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this scan. Way too dark, even if the resolution is great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I can understand that, but I'm curious to know whether you know for a fact that the image is dark, rather than the painting itself, presumably dark from age I would say. Some paintings of course are dark by design. The Potato Eaters or The Angelus amongst recently discussed here. I don't really see why they should be barred from "Featured Pictures" just for that reason. Likewise paintings, such as here in my estimation, which have darkened with age and cannot be restored by digital processing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And regarding your alternative lightening image, you still haven't equalised the histogram and the result is demonstrably less successful than mine.All AutoLevels does is map the palest tone to pure white and the darkest tone to pure black and interploate linearly mid-tones. If you want to further adjust mid-tones as well (gamma) then a separate edit on the curve will accomplish that. In your image the full tonal range is still not represented. However if you were to attempt this (I haven't tried) in three channel RGB space you would almost certainly interfere with colour balances. In the case of the Romano (school of Raphael) image below, the result was an unpleasant yellow colour cast. The appropriate colour space to use is LCH as used by me above. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)




File:Coventry Cathedral Interior, West Midlands, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 15:18:31 (UTC)

Original – Coventry Cathedral
Reason
I apologise in advance because I'm probably going to end up spamming FPC with cathedral nominations before long. I recently went on a four day cathedral photography trip funded by Wikimedia UK and photographed a large number of them. Anyway, I thought I'd start with something a bit different. Coventry Cathedral was bombed during WW2 and rebuilt in a modernist style in the 50s. As the main visual interest is split between the view down the aisle and the large stained glass wall at the entrance, I needed to use an off-centred point of view to capture it.
Articles in which this image appears
Coventry Cathedral
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominatorÐiliff «» (Talk) 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Apologizing for images like this? Oh, the nerve... Face-smile.svg — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Great image, lovely colours and interesting composition (and from the look of your other cathedral uploads, I'd more than likely be supporting all of them). Sotakeit (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Lovely (keep them coming). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Great image. Hafspajen (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's always nice to have the lead image for the Signpost featured content report be really obvious. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It is, isn't it? Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Eye catching colours. Nikhil (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Colin°Talk 12:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • support Is that ceiling cladding new?©Geni (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't believe so. I overheard a guide giving a talk to schoolchildren and he said that the wood was a gift from Canada (there's also a maple leaf just out of frame on the right as a nod to Canada), so I'm guessing it's original from the late 50s/early 60s. It does look in good condition though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Beautiful angle. ///EuroCarGT 02:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportCorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- This picture makes the cathedral look unreal, in a very good way. The angle is the perfect perspective for the ceiling. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - 99of9 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)




Cheakamus Lake[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 06:45:33 (UTC)

OriginalCheakamus Lake at dawn
Reason
Striking image, encyclopedic subject
Articles in which this image appears
Cheakamus Lake, British Columbia, and just added to Garibaldi Provincial Park
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Zorbzorb123
  • Support as nominatorPine 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice crisp image. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oversharpened, note halos around branches. Strong chromatic aberration in trees. Not much EV either... --Janke | Talk 16:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Janke. EV is poor as you can hardly see anything except the silhouette of the trees and the reflection of the sky in the water. All I can tell from the image is that the lake has got a narrow section in the middle. Lighting needs to be much better IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Not every picture in WP has to be a daytime scene. This picture conveys the silence of the wilderness. CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I do agree that not every picture on WP has to be a daytime scene, but they do have to be encyclopaedic, and EV is crucially important for FPC. What can you learn from a photo like this? It could be almost anywhere in the world that happens to have pine trees and mountains. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 01:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice picture, but the silhouetting of the trees makes it hard to see what this area looks like. Not encyclopedic unless it's taken during the day. Mattximus (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)




Indonesian rice farmer[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 06:44:03 (UTC)

Original – A farmer harvesting rice in Ambarawa, Central Java, just north of Kampoeng Rawa.
Reason
High technical quality, interesting contrast between the individual and the rice which must be harvested. Costume is common for rice harvests. This will probably be my last nomination from the trip to Semarang last month.
Articles in which this image appears
Rice production in Indonesia, Kampoeng Rawa
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress, maybe?
Creator
Chris Woodrich
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose nothing especially wrong with this but I wouldn't say it's among Wikipedia's best work. --Pine 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is exactly how I imagined Mrs Pollifax and the Hong Kong Buddha while chasing bandits outside the city in the ricefields. Hafspajen (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll have to look into that series; sounds interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is! A combination of James Bond and Agatha Christie. Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thankfully there's a second-hand bookstore here which has English-language books. Off hunting I go! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't it rather soft? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My kit lens is admittedly a bit soft (the panoramas you've seen are downsampled by about 15–20% for sharpness), but I believe the key parts of this image are sharp enough without downsampling. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • If you mean the parts to the back of the image, that's deliberate, to keep the focus on the individual and give a greater impression of depth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Why you cropped it? To remove the "distracting element" on right? The people far behind give me a better feeling about the environment than this farmer, isolated. Jee 15:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I cropped it in rather than out because I agreed with the QI review comment that the cut-off lean-to (for lack of a better word) was distracting. Had I gone up (and kept the lean-to), then the horizon would have come in and the illusion of endless fields of rice would have been broken. I didn't want to lose that effect, so I went in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's a good photo image compositionally (although if you're not going to include the horizon, I would crop it a little further and remove the line at the top), but image quality isn't stellar and it doesn't really have a lot of wow. Not quite enough to push it over the line. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the photo lacks something. I think if something -- people, buildings, trees, or water -- were in the distance, it would give more of an impression of the vastness of the field, not less. CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)




Garibalbi Lake[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 06:36:27 (UTC)

Reason
Encyclopedic image, attractive aesthetics
Articles in which this image appears
Garibaldi Provincial Park and just added to Garibaldi Lake
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Andysonic777
  • Support as nominatorPine 06:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it just me, or does the horizon look tilted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492 I had that same thought but when I rotated the image it didn't look better. I would appreciate it if you'd try a rotation and see if you get a better result. --Pine 06:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Once I get home, I'll see.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing; guess this is it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)





Nominations — to be closed[edit]

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

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

Closing procedure[edit]

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

When promoted, perform the following:

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


Delist closing procedure[edit]

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

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

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

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

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

If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:

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



Recently closed nominations[edit]

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

Portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon by Raphael[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 02:22:44 (UTC)

Original – Jeanne d'Aragon or Dona Isabel de Requesens is depicted circa 1518, wears a rich dark red robe and the wide, open sleeves are gathered in front with ornamented bands, and the texture of the gold and velvet is almost touchable. Every trade has its master, and Raphael is one of the great portrait painters of the Renaissance.
Reason
Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, Lady Viceroy of Naples, formerly known as Portrait of Jeanne d’Aragon. This work is now attributed to Raphael (Raffaello Santi), and even Giulio Romano a pupil of Raphael. Raphael was an Italian painter and architect of the High Renaissance. Together with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael was considered as the best of great masters of the Renaissance.[1] It was not unusual that great masters had a workshop, when they became famous - usually the master painted the face and hands and the more elaborate details, while the pupil will paint the background, and less important parts of the peainting. The portrait is showing skill depicting the portrait, textile and textures.[2]
(Warning -some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has a large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Just click on the last resolution at 810 × 1,024 pixels.)
  1. ^ See, for example Honour, Hugh; Fleming, John (1982). A World History of Art. London: Macmillan Reference Books. p. 357. ISBN 9780333235836. OCLC 8828368. 
Articles in which this image appears
Giovanna d'Aragona; Duchy of Alvito; Ramón de Cardona;
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Raphaello Sanzio or Raphael Santi or simply Raphael
  • Support as nominatorHafspajen (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No way. I don't have enough computer memory to process these enormous images, but I did manage to get the retouching editor's last effort at FPC into Nikon X2 long enough to see that basically what's he's doing is "equalizing" the histogram (essentially pushing the "auto-level" button). That may be appropriate for a digital image, but it won't do for an art image. These images have simply aged, and they darken for a variety of complex reasons. Only expert restoration can bring them back to an approximation of their original appearance. This kind of processing is just silly, inauthentic, and derisory. The original still beautiful: " ... thy eternal summer shall not fade / Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st": but this is just horrible, a kind of art botox. Not on my account, sorry. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever. But please don't start changing the file. And if you think that your van Gogh you nominated or any other artwork has not been restaurated at the museums you are in error. Art botox, eh? All artworks are regularly restaurated, cleaned and messed with at all museums, all over the world, addressing problems of chemical and physical deterioration, and performing corrective treatment based on an evaluation of the aesthetic, historic, and scientific characteristics of the object. Latest and probably not so good example is Michelangelo's works at the Sistine chapel. Hafspajen (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2014(UTC)
Daniel, before and after restoration.
  • Or maybe you prefer THIS or maybe THIS??? Here you can use your epitets: just silly, inauthentic, and derisory... Hafspajen (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about museum restorations such as the 2007 restoration of the Frans Hals I nominated at FPC. I'm talking about digitally processing an art image as if that could emulate such restoration.It can't. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that Adobe handles up to 30k pixels in each direction (at least, natively). Now how well one's computer can cope... that's a different story. My laptop (8gb RAM, Intel Core i5-3210M, NVIDIA GeForce GT630M) starts bogging up around 200 mp, like the scan of a banknote I made the other day. (Gets even worse once we add new layers, but then you weren't doing that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Coat, you'd need to use the large image viewer and/or download the image to see it. Browsers crash at this resolution, not owing to a lack of computing power, but owing to their own limitations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I trust Dcoetzee when it comes to this, although I agree that he should probably document his edits a bit better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • WP?#8 is fairly clear on the subject. We know from other examples that images like these are likely to be picked up and sold commercially as posters. Wikipedia shouldn't be placing a seal of approval on such images. They are inauthentic. Of course I have no objection to Dcoetzee uploading derivative files such as these, but I really can't see how they satisfy WP?#8, the basis of my objection. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT - But right, that has a FRAME. AND, I think that the original is probably much more like the one painting Raphael once painted, to be sincere. If Raphael would come back to look, he would recognize his work more when looking at original - and not Alt.
  • That is your objection. I trust Dcoetzee when it comes to this, also. It looks to me like any other regular old Renaissance portrait made by Raphael. And you couldn't even look at it. There is no real difference beteewen this and the one presented at La Petite larousse or here att the www.larousse.encyclopedie. And the gown was probably clear strong red - much much more reddish than this one - when it was painted. And Dcoetzee is a trusted editor. Hafspajen (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it's 'WP?#8's' objection. Why the passion? Here is the latest Raphael restoration and here a video of the restoration. Bit of a difference I fancy. Did DCoetzee use x-rays, cat scans and laser imaging as preparation before pushing autolevel? Enough already if you're wilfully not going to get the point. Nominate away. You're never going to get me to change my vote on these. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Why your passion? Gnothi seauton. And your example is about the Madonna of the Goldfinch by Raphael. Not nominated here. Hafspajen (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Boje moy! Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal. Hope that's right, French was never my strong point. I'll try to beg, borrow, or steal a high resolution image of theMadonna with the Goldfinch, failing which (likely the Uffizi being what it is) I'll just upload a photoshopped version of what I would have done if I had painted this great masterpiece myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your French is not French. And I wan't to remind you that once upon a time when Raphael made it this picture looked like this kind of strong colours - like HERE - just you know. Hafspajen (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Play fair Hafs. Reverting my upload of the Raphael wasn't a poke in the chest and it wasn't nice. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you please remove that oversized picture, File:Raphael - Saint John the Baptist Preaching.JPG that is visually disturbing or I am going to do it. It has nothing to do with this and it is the same size as the nominations. I don't want that picture in my nomination. You can link to it but you don't need to post it right here. Hafspajen (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Alt (but not original) - Alt is lovely. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed the two images that were not being discussed for FPC (left Coat's as a link). Ladies, gentlemen, art lovers, and bystanders (choose your own category): let's please try to be civil, and try to avoid overpowering the page with images.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The point about the image of the Raphael restoration I uploaded was its subtlety, quite unlike the chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration nominated here. I've told Hafs that in future I will oppose these kind of nominations as "inauthentic WP?#8". If he can't handle an editor opposing his nomination stating a valid reason citing the guidelines and makes an issue of it, then he must expect a response. If he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind. No lady, no gent moi BTW. Got that quite wrong. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the kind of colour revival that should be avoided
And this is the kind of reference standard we should be aiming for
  • And I told you I don't agree. The WP?#8 say - Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive - a picture should:
  1. Avoid inappropriate digital manipulation.
    • Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive.
    • Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
    • More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text.
    • Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
    • Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.
  • None of the above criteria forbidden applies on the Original, no manipulation that caused the main subject to be misrepresented. You made your point - and it is now enough. Let other editors have some space too. Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on the nomination. The only changes I made to the image were to adjust levels (manually using the Curves function in Photoshop), and solely because some parts of the original were dark and difficult to see when surrounded by whitespace in the context of an article. I don't think it's more authentic or better - C2RMF's images are very authentic professional works - and when viewed fullscreen or surrounded by black space, I think C2RMF's images look better as well. Again, this image was really just intended for use at thumbnail size in articles, not for any other use. I am not a professional in restoration or art history and no special trust should be placed in me. Dcoetzee 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hints on this appreciated by the way. I can't make any of the JPEG 2000 viewers I see on Google work for me. Email me if you like. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Dcoetzee for passing by. I was now checking around in all kinds of screens - for a while; and Alt1 is simply too dark on most small screens. The picture is going to be displayed on all sorts of screens - and unfortunately not Alt1 is not very visible, too dark. It is a quite valid reason for Dcoetzee edits, since we use this on Wikipedia.
    Also I think this kind of language used in this nomination like: horrible, a kind of art botox, just silly, inauthentic, and derisory, and you're wilfully not going to get the point , Chto xudshee sanskrtiskee akkcentee ya kagdee-libo slishal and the rest of similar expressions as: chocolate botox kitsch of trusty old DCoetzee's restoration and other personal attacs like he tries his hand at wit and subtlety, then he must expect me to respond in kind - should not be alowed to be used more in any nominations, not here, not anywhere. It is framed in with red: Please remember to be civil, ...+ to comment on the image, not the person. Which is why we have "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image." right at the top of this page. If civil comments would have been used, I doubt there would have been any comments regarding said oppose. But no, we've gotten this kind of expressions five or six times. It's just plain disrespectful; and this kind of behaviour is seriously wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, marked both Giulio Romano and Raphael
  • Don't you make comments in the MIDDLE OF THE nomination text, like you did HERE, got that? And what you added is old news, and there is a file Portrait of Dona Isabel de Requesens, marked both Giulio Romano and Raphael, since 28 May 2008. Not exactly unusual that pictures are attributed several artists. I would be thankful if you would really stop now editing this nomination, you made enought damage already, thank you. You don't know as much about art as you try to give the impression of. Hafspajen Wade Retro (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The point is the nomination no longer has EV. It doesn't have EV because the painting is not by Raphael (not listed by the Louvre as such) and it doesn't have EV as a portrait of the Duchess of Malfi otherwise. That surely was worth highlighting at the outset once discovered. I'm not trying to 'destroy' your nomination. That's your take. I'm simply pointing out that the image sucks. Get over it and move on. Stop caring so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to seriously ask you stop editing this nomination, stop posting more pictures here ( I removed some new ones added here again) and stop adding comments like this image sucks and now I am asking for administrators intervention agains Wikipedia:Harassment on this nomination, Drmies.
    And also ask for stop telling Fylbecatulous not to vote here, above in the nomination The Scream. Raphael lived 1483-1520 and Jeanne d'Aragon lived 1502–1575, it is not impossible for him to paint it. I care because it is my nomination, because it is a beautiful picture, it has character, grace and it is lovely. If it is attributed to several painters - this kind of doubt happens in the world of art history. Why do you care som much, that is on the other hand a mystery. Hafspajen (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Raphael retouched the face because he was worried about the comparison his patron Francis I would make with the Mona Lisa, which he also owned. It was not a portrait of the Duchess of Malfi, but rather the wife of the viceroy of Naples, a very celebrated beauty of the time. Raphael couldn't undertake the commission, so he sent his pupil Giulio Romano instead. It couldn't possibly be a portrait of Jeanne d'Aragon (Duchess of Malfi) because she was no older than sixteen at the time and the painting is clearly sensuous (erotic) in accordance with Francis 1's avowed taste in portraiture. Even an image of her with her hair tumbling down would have quite unthinkable for a sixteen year unmarried girl, not to mention its other features that would not have escaped the attention of a medieval masturbator. HTH. And yes, it's a beautiful painting. What a shame the image you propose to feature is so completely hideous. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What a shame that you are using such words as completely hideous and medieval masturbator, that you are still editing the nomination after being asked several times not to, and what a shame that you are a truly disruptive editor, but nobody dares tell you that. Hafspajen (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And - you are assuming above a great deal. People in the Middle Ages and Renaissance were getting married when 14 - 15 and cetainly a painting of a girl at the of 16 in the Renaissance should be clearly sensuous because it was an age when girls were about to marry. Not American standards. Could have been a portrait to show for a rich bachelor - no snapshots at the time. Hafspajen (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hafs, that's nonsense. The painting is not by Raphael. He may have intervened on the face and the painting may have been have been based on a design by him, but the only source for that is Vasari. We have in Raphael's own handwriting documentation testifying that he depatched his ablest student Giulio Romano to execute the painting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The painting is The workshop and school of Rafael - and the master always took care that the paintings coming out of his workshop were well done. And what - we don't even know for sure who exacly Mona Lisa is - that doesn't mean that the painting is not one of the greatest Renaissance portraits. And have you seen what kind of paintings Giulio Romano cames up with? No good quality - but this one is marvelous. He could not have done this alone... Hafspajen (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the image held in the Louvre database. Its title is "Giulio Romano, peut-être avec l’intervention de Raphaël, Portrait de Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola, 1518" ("Giulio Romano, possibly with the intervention of Raphaël, Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enríquez de Cardona-Anglesola, 1518"). As I say you won't find this painting searching under "Raphael" in the museum catalogue. Romano was a master draughtsman, given important commissions in his lifetime. His was perfectly capable of painting this work and that he did do is attested by Raphael himself. The Mona Lisa is iconic in its own right, but this painting on the face of it has no EV, not by a great master and of only minor historic importance. It shouldn't be a Featured Picture. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)




Bindo Altoviti by Raphael[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 00:02:27 (UTC)

Original – In 1515, five hundred years ago this young Florentine banker was depicted by the great master Raphael as a beautiful young man with grey eyes and flowing blond hair over his shoulders. In the artist’s conception, Bindo Altoviti just turns over his shoulder as if to speak to his Florentine bride, Fiammetta.
Reason
Portrait of Bindo Altoviti is one of the great Renaissance portraits. Raphael and the Beautiful Banker: The Story of the Bindo Altoviti Portrait
The painting is made by Raphael, Italian painter and architect of the High Renaissance. Bindo Altoviti was a rich banker born in Rome in 1491, but of Florentine origin. Bindo Altoviti was a cultured man who loved the arts. Raphael was at the time influenced by the works of Leonardo, which he studied during this period, for example the darkness in front of the figure is not a characteristic trait of Raphael's paintings. The artwork is curently at National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.
Articles in which this image appears
Portrait of Bindo Altoviti (Raphael); Raphaello Sanzio; List of paintings by Raphael
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Raphaello Sanzio or Raphael Santi or simply Raphael

Promoted File:Raphael - Bindo Altoviti - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)



Edwin Landseer - Scene from A Midsummer Night's Dream[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 22:24:44 (UTC)

Original – Act IV, scene I. Shakespeare's Titania is engaged in a marital quarrel with her husband Oberon. This quarrel results in a mess. Nick Bottom, the weaver, has been given the head of an donkey by Puck, who feels it is better suited to his character, while Titania is made to fall in love with this primitive, rude, crude and unpolished character.
Reason
A Midsummer Night's Dream is a comedy play by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written between 1590 and 1596. In Great Britain from the 13th century, Midsummer was celebrated on Midsummer Eve (St. John's Eve, June 23) and St. Peter's Eve (June 28) with the lighting of bonfires, feasting and merrymaking. The play is one of Shakespeare's most popular works for the stage and is widely performed across the world.
Articles in which this image appears
A Midsummer Night's Dream; Edwin Landseer; Rabbits and hares in art
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Edwin Landseer
  • Support as nominatorHafspajen (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I love Landseer. We're lucky enough to have a couple of his works in the National Gallery of Scotland, and I adore them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Just love it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (He he he, bottom) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We definitely need more paintings of tiny streakers exposing themselves to donkeys. Belle (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Edwin Landseer - Scene from A Midsummer Night's Dream. Titania and Bottom - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)



SMS Seeadler[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 20:26:08 (UTC)

OriginalSMS Seeadler, a German Imperial Navy unprotected cruiser.
Reason
The last nomination got very little input, and, as to the one objection raised, I do not think it was particularly valid: There may, in theory, be other photographs of the ship, but they are most likely undigitized in some dark collection; I can't find any evidence of any others available of even moderately comparable value. Cropped to balance sky, sea, and smoke (Wikipedia's thumbnailing only really cares about width, anyway.), while including the smoke that shows its means of power.
Articles in which this image appears
SMS Seeadler
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator
Detroit Photographic Co.; restoration by Adam Cuerden
  • Support Per Crisco Hafspajen (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Godot13 (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — OK, you-all convinced me. We'll call it an environmental shot & vote aye aye. (And BTW, I didn't actually vote against it last time.) Sca (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:SMS Seeadler cropped.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)



The Screaming Skull[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 19:35:28 (UTC)

OriginalThe Screaming Skull (1958) poster
Reason
Good scan and high EV - aritlce is GA
Articles in which this image appears
The Screaming Skull, Alex Nicol
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Employee(s) of National Screen Service Corp. (uploaded by Crisco 1492)
  • Support as nominatorTomer T (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sadly. The poster is very featureable, but this scan currently has the fold lines (fixable) and considerable compression artefacts (not that fixable). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Crisco. Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)



Blue Lagoon (geothermal spa)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 01:51:22 (UTC)

Original – Iceland's Blue Lagoon at the Blue Hour. The Blue Lagoon is a spa located in a lava field in Grindavík on the Reykjanes Peninsula.
Reason
High quality and an attractive illustration
Articles in which this image appears
Blue Lagoon (geothermal spa)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Sarah1990
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- The creator's other contribution Commons:File:St Georges Asylum.jpg is also gorgeous. Someone should ping her and encourage her to contribute more! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • There are sometimes editors who contribute a couple amazing images, then disappear. The FP File:Lava Lake Nyiragongo 2.jpg was uploaded by a Dutch editor who uploaded a batch of nine great images then just stopped editing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I actually really like File:Iceland Glacier.jpg too, although her attention to the file description is slightly lacking, there's no such thing as the Golden Glacier in Iceland. There's a Golden Circle tourist route that covers that waterfall, but the filename/description is encyclopaedically useless... anyway, I digress. If she had stuck around a little longer we may have had a chance to improve that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It is an outdoor spa with warm water, and people can use it even in winter. A lovely place, lovely image. Hafspajen (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a somewhat unencyclopaedic image IMO, as it's dark and you can't really see anything of it except a reflection of the sky, and some lights in the background. There are much more useful images in the article, although none of them are particularly awe-inspiring. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support EV could be stronger, but this image might do better as a Commons FPC. --Pine 07:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not even sure it would do well on Commons FPC. It's out soft/out of focus (check the lights at 100%). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose low encyclopaedic value + per Diliff. I can't see the "Blue Lagoon". Perhaps an other view of the "Blue Lagoon outside area"? So I'd like to upload it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above, the uniqueness of this lake is the blueness. It's taken when it's so dark that the colour doesn't stand out, reducing the overall EV. Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)



Historical paintings engraved for U.S. banknotes[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 00:12:00 (UTC)

Original
A seven-engraving design set of the first issue National Bank Note reverse based on historical paintings in the United States Capitol rotunda.
Reason
High quality, high EV (presented as a set). There are eight historical paintings hanging in the United States Capitol rotunda which depict scenes from early American exploration and colonization as well as the American Revolution. Due in large part to the national themes depicted, seven of these images were chosen as designs for the reverse of the first issue of the United States National Bank Note. Only the Surrender of Lord Cornwallis was not included (for reasons not revealed in Treasury Department correspondence).
This nomination includes the seven engravings that were made based on the Capitol Rotunda paintings. Underneath each caption is a link to the original art as a comparative reference. Each painting is 12 feet (3.66m) x 18 feet (5.49m). The vignette portion of the engraved plate is 2.5 inches (0.064 m) x 5 inches (0.13 m).
The original imprints come from a Department of the Treasury presentation book (believed to have been given to Lyman Gage). Scans were made with an Epson 10000XL scanner at 2,400dpi.
Articles in which these images appear
Art and engraving on United States banknotes (all), Steel engraving, and others.
FP category for this image
U.S. History
Creator
American, Continental, and National Bank Note Companies under contract to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Restoration by Godot13.
Landing of Columbus
Painting 
DeSoto Discovering the Mississippi
Frederick Girsch
Painting 
Baptism of Pocahontas
Charles Burt
Painting 
Embarkation of the Pilgrims
W.W. Rice
Painting 
Declaration of Independence
Frederick Girsch
Painting 
Surrender of General Burgoyne
Frederick Girsch
Painting 
Washington Resigning his Commission
Girsch & Delnoce
Painting 


Promoted File:BEP-(Multiple)-Landing of Columbus (Vanderlyn).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:BEP-GIRSCH-DeSoto Discovering the Mississippi (Powell).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:BEP-BURT-Baptism of Pocahontas (Chapman).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:BEP-RICE-Embarkation of the Pilgrims (Weir).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:BEP-GIRSCH-Declaration of Independence (Trumbull).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:BEP-GIRSCH-Surrender of General Burgoyne (Trumbull).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Promoted File:BEP-DELNOCE & GIRSCH-Washington Resigning his Commission (Trumbull).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)



Tony Stewart on 2 wheels at Infineon[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 18:16:26 (UTC)

Original – Tony Stewart at Infineon
Reason
Fantastic photo of one of NASCAR's top stars "Tony Stewart" up on 2 wheels on his way to win the race & the 2005 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series
Articles in which this image appears
NASCAR - 2005 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series - Tony Stewart - Joe Gibbs Racing - Sonoma Raceway - Toyota/Save Mart 350 - Stock car racing - Auto racing
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator
WPPilot
  • Support as nominatortalk→ WPPilot  18:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to be of pretty fair quality overall. Slight noise throughout, but not enough to warrant an Oppose. It may just be me, but the encyclopaedic value seems rather low... While it does contribute to the above articles, it would be nice to see the picture appear in other articles as well, as this would greatly increase it's value overall. Dusty777 03:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dusty, I have included the photo in some additional pages, (see above) per your suggestion. --talk→ WPPilot  21:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Per enhanced encyclopaedic value. (Is a pretty cool picture actually) Dusty777 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Very well composed, but do I see compression artefacts or discolourations on the car itself? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Crisco, yes that is the discoloration you see on the hood, that track is dirty and the cars, every one of them are beat up and thrashed, after racing on that track as it is one of only 2 road tracks that these cars race upon. The hood also has plates that are riveted into it, that may look out of place close up.talk→ WPPilot  17:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm... well, I guess it's possible that those specks are dirt. Support barring arguments otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A note: I've uploaded a new version of the file after running the original JPG through Noise Ninja. The specks are much less pronounced, so I think it works better, but feel free to revert if you disagree (you may have to purge your cache). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)



Wilbert Robinson[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 12:13:59 (UTC)

OriginalWilbert Robinson, American baseball catcher, coach, and manager.
Reason
I like to try and restore a few images connected to good work I've seen others doing. I found this one when reporting on the Wikicup for the WP:Signpost, and thought it had a lot of potential.
Articles in which this image appears
Wilbert Robinson, List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Sport
Creator
Bain News Service, restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very well done scan and restoration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice restoration...--Godot13 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment To me it seems very yellow. Is that how it's supposed to be? 86.160.82.46 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This wasn't scanned with a colour bar, so I can't say for certain, but photography from this era does tend to be very yellow, and the original background (cropped out, obviously) looked pretty natural, and not yellow. As such, I suspect it's, at the very least, more-or-less right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support good work. --Pine 06:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Wilbert Robinson 1916.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)



The Death of Socrates[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 05:56:37 (UTC)

Original – The Death of Socrates, by Jacques-Louis David (1787)
Reason
Good quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears
The Death of Socrates, Greece
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825)

Promoted File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well darn...I would have voted for this one in a heart beat!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well that wouldn't counted anyway after the voting period ended. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Of course. I am just kicking myself for not being a part of bringing this to FP status. One of my favorites and a file I have used on an article. But kudos to those that supported it. Superb!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)





Suspended nominations[edit]

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