Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

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

Promoting an image

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

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

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

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

Delisting an image

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

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

How to comment for Delist Images

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

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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


To see recent changes, purge the page cache.


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit


Current nominations[edit]

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (1789–1902) set[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2014 at 05:33:10 (UTC)

Reason

High quality, high EV (presented as a set). The present set of BEP engraved portraits depicts the first 42 U.S. Secretaries of the Treasury,[n 1] spanning just over a century from Alexander Hamilton (1789–95) through Lyman J. Gage (1897–1902). Several of these portraits have appeared on United States paper currency and bonds.
All of the images appear in the United States Secretary of the Treasury article and 35 of 40 appear in their respective individual articles. The remaining five articles were either too short or image heavy to justify inclusion. Only two have been used to replace lead images due to the extremely poor quality of the existing image.

Reduced-size original images can be found under “other versions” in the image description. These images have been scanned (Epson 10000XL scanner @2400dpi) from original impressions that are part of a Treasury Department presentation album of portraits and vignettes (c. 1902), reportedly presented to Lyman Gage.

Original – A 40-image set of extremely high-resolution BEP engraved portraits depicting the United States Treasury Secretaries, consecutively, from the creation of the office to the beginning of the 20th century.

Articles in which these images appear
United States Secretary of the Treasury (all), and one in each of the following: Alexander Hamilton, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., Albert Gallatin, George W. Campbell, Alexander J. Dallas, William H. Crawford, Richard Rush, Samuel D. Ingham, Louis McLane, William J. Duane, Roger B. Taney, Levi Woodbury, Walter Forward, John C. Spencer, George M. Bibb, Robert J. Walker, Thomas Corwin, James Guthrie, Howell Cobb, Philip F. Thomas, Salmon P. Chase, William P. Fessenden, Hugh McCulloch, George S. Boutwell, William A. Richardson, Benjamin H. Bristow, Lot M. Morrill, John Sherman, William Windom, Charles J. Folger, Daniel Manning, Charles S. Fairchild, Charles Foster, John G. Carlisle, and Lyman J. Gage.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Restoration by Godot13.


Secretaries of the Treasury (18th and 19th centuries)
Alexander Hamilton
1789–95 
Oliver Wolcott
1795–1800 
Samuel Dexter
1801 
Albert Gallatin
1801–14 
George Campbell
1814 
Alexander Dallas
1814–16 
William Crawford
1816–25 
Richard Rush
1825–29 
Samuel Ingham
1829–31 
Louis McLane
1831–33 
William Duane
1833 
Roger Taney
1833–34 
Levi Woodbury
1834–41 
Thomas Ewing
1841 
Walter Forward
1841–43 
John Spencer
1843–44 
George Bibb
1844–45 
Robert Walker
1845–49 
William Meredith
1849–50 
Thomas Corwin
1850–53 
James Guthrie
1853–57 
Howell Cobb
1857–60 
Philip Thomas
1860–61 
John Dix
1861 
Salmon Chase
1861–64 
William Fessenden
1864–65 
Hugh McCulloch
1865–69, 1884–85 
George Boutwell
1869–73 
William Richardson
1873–74 
Benjamin Bristow
1874–76 
Lot Morrill
1876–77 
John Sherman
1877–81 
William Windom
1881, 1889–91 
Charles Folger
1881–84 
Walter Gresham
1884 
Daniel Manning
1885–87 
Charles Fairchild
1887–89 
Charles Foster
1891–93 
John Carlisle
1893–97 
Lyman Gage
1897–1902 
  1. ^ Two Secretaries served two non-consecutive terms, therefore 40 portraits are included.
  • Support as nominatorGodot13 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very useful, very good quality. You may have some minor issues with hair (I think I see one or two strands on the Hamilton image, for instance... too smooth to be cracks), but since this is at 2400 px, and they're very small and barely noticeable, I don't mind. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't quite understand why the original files are reduced size. I take it you're unaware of chunked upload? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Adam- I do know about the chunked upload (I may have used it once or twice). The raw full tiff files range in size between 90M and 223M. I had some reservation about uploading roughly 4Gig-6Gig of raw files. If necessary I would be happy to load the full raw files for each image, either all at once (it will take several hours) or gradually over the next few days. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Despite activating chunked upload, I cannot upload files larger than 100MB... Any thoughts? Crisco?-Godot13 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Have you tried converting to PNG? It's generally a lot smaller, and is also a lossless format. Failing that, importScript('User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js'); in Commons:User:Godot13/common.js is probably your best bet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Sorry to jump into the middle of this discussion over something you may already know, but what you wrote is only true if the tiff files are 8 bits; PNG is only 8 bits so if you convert from a 16 bit tiff, it's lossy. Technical point, but true. Samsara (FA  FP) 10:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
          • It is slow-going, but working. Alphabetically beginning "G" will finish later/tomorrow.-Godot13 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Re: Chunked uploads. It only works with UploadWizard, which you can't use if you're overwriting something. That may be the issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Good to know for the future, thanks Crisco.-Godot13 (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, Adam Cuerden - All linked raw images are now full-size files.--Godot13 (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I think some of these could use a little more cleaning. Do you have a lossless version of the work so far? Because, if you do, I will gladly clean everything up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the offer Adam. At 2400dpi, to be spotless would, I think, be artificial and take away any benefit of the high resolution. If we are talking about 2 or 3 images where something was overlooked, I would be happy to accept your help. If it's more than that, then I may need to put the nomination on hold in order to fix any systemic issues myself.--Godot13 (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)




Peter Carey (historian)[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2014 at 01:57:10 (UTC)

Original – British historian Peter Carey at the 2014 International Indonesia Forum
Reason
High quality, tack sharp. I rather like how it turned out. I had some concerns, but the more I look at it the more I like it.
Articles in which this image appears
Peter Carey (historian)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers, perhaps? (we put Benoit Peeters there)
Creator
Chris Woodrich
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm not sure. Compositionally it's nice enough, and the lighting (for a non-studio shot) is pretty good, but his skin tone looks very red to me. And it's a little blurred at 100%. Just not quite sure it's up there for FP. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I've reduced the tint by four (less red color) and used less drastic denoising (as well as a wee bit of downsizing). Diliff, I hope this is better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Still not sure it's much better. Needs a bit more (on my screen, at least). I had a go myself prior to commenting but couldn't reduce the redness without unduly affecting the image generally (but that was a crude attempt with the colour balance in Photoshop). You use Lightroom, right? And I assume it was taken in RAW? What I suggest is playing with an adjustment brush over just his skin. I'm not sure exactly what adjustments would be required but possibly a slight reduction in saturation and some tint/temp adjustments? I would have a go but it's always best to do it with the RAW files. Still, not a lot can be done about the slight blur which is the other half of the issue. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Not too sure I see the blur, except maybe the nose (though that may be slightly OOF). I mean, the line between his jaw and the background looks perfectly crisp to me. Anyhow, I've tried to bring down the redness of his skin a bit.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I think you've found a good skin tone now, certainly improved on the original. No, the focus isn't an issue (if anything, the nose is the sharpest part of the image) the blur is somewhat universal across the image. It's only slight and I'm being a little picky, but it appears to be camera shake to me. Just looking at the settings, you used 1/40th of a second and 100mm (160mm effective due to the crop sensor). That is usually too slow for handheld (rule of thumb is not to let the shutter speed drop below the effective focal length), although can be rescued with image stabilisation in some instances. I suspect that the IS has assisted with stability but not been 100% effective, leaving a slight blur. As I said, it's minor but noticeable to me. Compare with one of my portraits from the EU parliament earlier in the year. I was using a lens that would be technically less sharp than your lens, but I find the image itself a bit sharper (ignoring the resolution difference). I suspect the only difference is that mine was taken with a studio flash setup. That doesn't in itself make the image sharper, but it does freeze the subject better, so any camera or subject motion is eliminated. Anyway, in any case, I'm not suggesting you can only take FP portraits in a studio setting. I'm going to weak support because I think it's still a quality portrait, but not perfect. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)




Red-kneed Dotterel[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 22:49:37 (UTC)

Original – Red-kneed Dotterel (Erythrogonys cinctus), Chiltern, Victoria, Australia
Reason
It is an illustrative image of the species.
Articles in which this image appears
Red-kneed Dotterel
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominatorJJ Harrison (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent photo that has great EV (no other even reasonable pictures are available on wiki for this bird) Mattximus (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nikhil (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Impressively low camera position on the water, you're practically looking upwards at its belly. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – outstanding. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)




Black-fronted Dotterel[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 22:49:34 (UTC)

Original – Black-fronted Dotterel (Elseyornis melanops), Chiltern, Victoria, Australia
Reason
I think it is very useful for the article.
Articles in which this image appears
Black-fronted Dotterel
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominatorJJ Harrison (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very useful. Beak is a little OOF, but just barely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Another excellent photo. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nikhil (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)




Sharp-tailed Sandpiper[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 22:49:32 (UTC)

Original – Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminata), Hexham Swamp, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Reason
It is an encyclopaedic image.
Articles in which this image appears
Sharp-tailed sandpiper
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominatorJJ Harrison (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - How would you feel about a slightly tighter crop (a bit less lead room)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably not fussed. Crop it and I'll have an opinion. Haha. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support perfect, how it is. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent. Mattximus (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • support Nikhil (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)




Sulfur mining in Kawah Ijen[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2014 at 16:20:52 (UTC)

Original – Sulfur mining in Ijen volcano, Java, Indonesia.
Reason
Can't believe nobody's ever nominated this. The wow is right there, as is the encyclopedic value. Lovely image (though the stench....)
Articles in which this image appears
Ijen
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator
Sémhur




Forum Romanum[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2014 at 18:05:07 (UTC)

Original – Forum Romanum in Rome, Italy. HDR panoramic view out of 9 pictures (3 exposures at 3 different angles). Picture taken from the Capitoline Museums.
Reason
high resolution, good exposure, already FP and POD in commons
Articles in which this image appears
Forum Romanum (German Wikipedia), Forum Romain (French Wikipedia), Roma (Portuguese Wikipedia)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator
BeBo86
  • Support as nominatorBeBo86 (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ineligible at present: It's a great image, but English Wikipedia's featured pictures requires uses on English Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)




St Mary's Basilica[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2014 at 15:34:19 (UTC)

Original – A pastor conducting mass at the St Mary's Basilica, Bangalore
Reason
Good quality, EV and composition.
Articles in which this image appears
St. Mary's Basilica, Bangalore, Mass (liturgy)
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim
  • Support as nominatorMuhammad(talk) 15:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice to see an Indian church, I'm a bit overwhelmed by the English ones at the moment! Apart from the people, I wouldn't have guessed it was in India at all. It would have been nice to see a bit more of the interior though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Good work. We only use the title "Priest" or "Father (Fr.)" in Catholic Churches (in India). Jee 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I didnt know that, thanks :) --Muhammad(talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a very worthwhile picture, but I specifically disagree with the "good composition" claim. For me there are significant composition problems. The left and right edges of the structure behind the altar are cut off very awkwardly, as are the people in the congregation. There is also an ugly light or camera fitting at the right (may be unavoidable). I would like to see this picture wider in all directions. 86.130.67.100 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nikhil (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)




Portrait of a Young Woman[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2014 at 10:05:46 (UTC)

OriginalPortrait of a Young Woman, commonly attributed to Sandro Botticelli, painted between 1480 and 1485.
Reason
1400s, enchanting alchemy and (I believe) this time an accurate reproduction by Google Art.
Articles in which this image appears
Portrait of a Young Woman (Botticelli, Frankfurt), Sandro Botticelli
FP category for this image
Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Sandro Botticelli (possibly)
  • Support as nominatorBrandmeistertalk 10:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Strikingly simple technique. (Does she look like Meryl Streep?) Sca (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Really nice. -- Bkouhi (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)




ΔFosB[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 20:44:56 (UTC)

Original – See the transcluded wikilink-annotated image insertion template. This image is annotated on commons and in template:psychostimulant addiction.
Reason
It's an interactive image that illustrates the fairly technical process/mechanisms through which addiction to stimulants occurs. It's been linked on the talkpages of three relevant wikiprojects (WP:MCB, WP:MED, WP:PHARM) for feedback prior to this nomination.
Articles in which this image appears
FosB/ΔFosB, Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, Behavioral epigenetics
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
Seppi333
  • Support as nominatorSeppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I'm inclined to Support, but this is one of the most unusual noms I've seen in a while. I'm mainly worried about the technical problems, e.g. how do we put it into a gallery; how do we put it on PotD, etc. Crisco 1492, Armbrust, can we have some commentary on this aspect?
    Either way, though, I think we should promote it, but we might want to make its own section at FP, for such interactive images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The image will be added to the gallery as every other image, the links in the template are not part of the image. There is no need for a separate section. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Small technical comment. (Win 7 / IE11) In the actual SVG image at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/%CE%94FosB.svg, the black arrow heads, which apparently should be solid black, appear white with a black border, with the coloured line visibly protruding into the arrow head. In the rendering on this page, and in media viewer, they appear solid black. I'm not sure whether this is a bug in IE rendering or a bug in the SVG. 217.44.214.6 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a bug in SVG, though I didn't bother correcting it since the image renders correctly once converted to PNG. It appears that way regardless of the browser used. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No idea about the accuracy of what is depicted, but definitely needs polishing. It really looks like the kind of diagram one would find in secondary/high school report on a first sight. Even though it's correct, I think it takes more than just accuracy to get FP tag. - Blieusong (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This image would be featured for its encyclopedic value, not primarily its artistic value. You are on extremely loose footing calling this "high-school" quality, even if you only mean the artistic choices. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I do realize that EV gets the priority over here. But it's still featured picture candidate and so we can't do anything artistically wise, which was the point of my comment. I don't ask for Picasso grade diagrams, but at the very least, this candidate should use sans serif fonts, and be less cluttered. - Blieusong (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that this diagram is nothing special in terms of execution. It is easy to find lots of small niggles. I could not comment on other aspects. I do not wish to denigrate the picture overall, as it may be excellent in terms of information content. 86.130.67.100 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The diagram uses sans, though I'll point out that font style isn't a criteria for FP. My apologies if it's too complicated for you though; the diagram is geared towards individuals with more than a secondary/high school education. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
OH! What font are you using? It isn't showing up properly on my computer... Are you using Inkscape or illustrator to edit this? Illustrator has an option to convert all text to outline - which will get rid of all the issues. If you don't use it everyone will need the correct font installed (including the MediaWiki software, which has a very limited number of fonts). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S.It will make the image harder to edit, but the trick here is to save an image for editing with the text as normal as well, and upload it for reference. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I used Inkscape to write it; I can change the text to Inkscape's "Microsoft sans serif" font if you think it'll look better. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Add: Inkscape's sans serif isn't in wikimedia software. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • comment What are those green rectangles? They should be labelled. I'm assuming they are Adenylate cyclase, in which case they should be bound to the membrane right? Mattximus (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that they are labeled in the template, but not in the svg itself. Check the template link.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
They're G proteins. I omitted AC to reduce the number of nodes in the cascade. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not sure if it's relevant for this FPC, but the template's using red text to represent transcription factors is confusing. I initially thought they were red links. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind changing it; what color do you suggest as a substitute? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I've given it some further thought and think it might be a better idea to have the text in the image itself and using an image map to provide the links. This would help avoid the problem of the stand-alone image being unusable. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)




TAAR1–Dopamine neuron pharmacodynamics diagram[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 20:44:59 (UTC)

Original – In this diagram, amphetamine enters the presynaptic neuron across the neuronal membrane or through the dopamine transporter (DAT).[1] Once inside, it binds to trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) or enters the synaptic vesicles through vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2).[1][2] When amphetamine or a trace amine (e.g., phenethylamine) binds to TAAR1, it reduces postsynaptic dopamine receptor firing rate and triggers protein kinase A (PKA) and protein kinase C (PKC) signaling, resulting in DAT phosphorylation.[1] Phosphorylated DAT then either operates in reverse or withdraws into the presynaptic neuron and ceases transport.[1] When amphetamine or a trace amine enters the synaptic vesicles through VMAT2, dopamine is released into the cytosol (yellow-orange area).[2][3]
Reason
It's a helpful visual aid for explaining a technical concept – the pharmacodynamics of amphetamine and trace amines in dopamine neurons that contain trace amine-associated receptor 1.
Articles in which this image appears
Amphetamine, Adderall, Dextroamphetamine, Phenethylamine, TAAR1, Dopamine, Lisdexamfetamine, and Autoreceptor (+3 more on the German wiki Face-surprise.svg)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
Seppi333
  • Support as nominatorSeppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Good diagram, but needs "prettying up": The outer edge of it isn't very smooth or symmetrical (and I don't see any reason not to make it fairly symmetrical), for example; "DAT internalization" is unclear as to what it refers to due to positioning, and the colours are a bit too... bold; the mustard yellow, for example. A little shading would make it look better - the solid colouurs give it a slightly MSPaint-y feel. It's a quite good diagram, it's just not quite at FP yet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can tone down the boldness of the colors over the next few days. I may withdrawal this nomination since I'm not that good at manipulating the finer details in SVG diagrams though. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • comment is TAAR1 membrane bound? I know it can form a heterodymer with D2R which is definitely membrane bound... Mattximus (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's seldom, if at all, expressed along the membrane. PMID 18524885 Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)



@Mattximus: Hi Mattximus; I'm pinging you since I'm finally renominating this diagram.
Note: similar to my other nominated diagram for ΔFosB, this image is transcluded into articles via template:amphetamine pharmacodynamics, although it only contains a single wikitext annotation. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ a b c d Miller GM (January 2011). "The emerging role of trace amine-associated receptor 1 in the functional regulation of monoamine transporters and dopaminergic activity". J. Neurochem. 116 (2): 164–176. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07109.x. PMC 3005101. PMID 21073468. 
  2. ^ a b Eiden LE, Weihe E (January 2011). "VMAT2: a dynamic regulator of brain monoaminergic neuronal function interacting with drugs of abuse". Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1216: 86–98. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05906.x. PMID 21272013. "VMAT2 is the CNS vesicular transporter for not only the biogenic amines DA, NE, EPI, 5-HT, and HIS, but likely also for the trace amines TYR, PEA, and thyronamine (THYR) ... [Trace aminergic] neurons in mammalian CNS would be identifiable as neurons expressing VMAT2 for storage, and the biosynthetic enzyme aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC)." 
  3. ^ Offermanns S, Rosenthal W (2008). Encyclopedia of Molecular Pharmacology (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer. pp. 1219–1222. ISBN 3540389164. 


Anousheh Ansari[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 16:35:13 (UTC)

OriginalAnousheh Ansari is an Iranian-American engineer and co-founder and chairwoman of Prodea Systems. On September 18, 2006, a few days after her 40th birthday, she became the first Iranian in space. Ansari was the fourth overall self-funded space tourist, and the first self-funded woman to fly to the International Space Station. Her memoir, My Dream of Stars, co-written with Homer Hickam, was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2010.
Reason
High quality, EV, FP on Persian Wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears
Anousheh Ansari
FP category for this image
People
Creator
NASA
  • Support as nominatorBkouhi (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support EV and high quality. Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Blieusong (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's a nice portrait. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)





Nominations — to be closed[edit]

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

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

Closing procedure[edit]

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

When promoted, perform the following:

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


Delist closing procedure[edit]

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

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

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

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

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

If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:

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



Recently closed nominations[edit]

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

Vreten metro station, Stockholm[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2014 at 12:20:10 (UTC)

Original – Vreten metro station, Stockholm
Reason
High quality and resolution images showing the plattform.
Articles in which this image appears
Vreten metro station
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Arild Vågen
  • Support as nominatorArildV (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Great photo and subject. I worry a little about the noise, but the real problem is that the article is a very short stub with a very large gallery- it's drowning in photos. This makes it hard to judge the value of any individual picture. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey J Milburn,
This photo is used as an single images in many Wikipedias and VI at Commons. I think it gives more information (platform, train) than the other images. The station also has only one entry/exit to the plattform, and this picture is taken at the entrance/exit. The other photos are taken from the opposite side of the plattform, which gives a cleaner image but lower EV.
I dont think small amounts of noise is a problem for a very high resolution indoor shot of a subway station with strong contrast. It does not work with HDR here.--ArildV (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I made this the lead image as for me this is clearly the best quality and cleaned up the gallery. --ELEKHHT 04:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I like it, and I don't think the noise would be noticeable; were it not for the very high resolution. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)



New Court of Corpus Christi College[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2014 at 21:04:15 (UTC)

OriginalCorpus Christi College is a constituent college of the University of Cambridge. The New Court was designed by William Wilkins and completed in 1827.
Reason
High quality, high EV image. Already featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator
Diliff
  • Support as nominatorArmbrust The Homunculus 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Oh go on then... Might as well. Judging by the more recent nominations, it'll need all the support votes it can get! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Lovely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support helping with quotas ;) -Blieusong (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. To my eye, this picture does not look exactly straight, especially the gatehouse. It benefits from a very slight rotation anticlockwise. 86.128.3.186 (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. So I take it this isn't in the only Corpus Christi I'm familiar with :) High quality, attractive photo. I opened the image in Photoshop and it appears to be quite straight -- it's the composition that is slightly off-balance. Not enough for me to oppose though -- I don't think we could expect anything better from the subject. Jujutacular (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think any apparent tilt is probably due to the lack of symmetry, not in the building itself (which seems pretty symmetrical to me) but the lighting, and the ivy only growing on one side. Is this what you mean by the composition being off balance? It's pretty much perfectly centred and apart from visiting when the lighting was overhead and casting no shadows, I'm not sure what I can do about it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's an optical illusion or what, but almost the very first thing I notice every time I look at the photo is that doesn't seem straight. When I rotate the image slightly anticlockwise, the apparent tilt is corrected and the picture looks straight. Does it not appear tilted to anyone else? If not, then it must just be me. 217.44.214.6 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the shadow and ivy is what I meant by the composition being off-balance. I do believe it is pretty much perfectly straight and centered. Jujutacular (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)'
  • Support nice wide shot, did find it tilted at first but upon further examination the photo is fine. ///EuroCarGT 03:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't really know anything about architecture photography, but have played with Hugin a bit, and I'm wondering if the image would be helped by a projection that conserves the parallel horizontals a bit more. (Perhaps some setting of the General Panini Projection?) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It's funny that you suggest the Panini projection. That's exactly what has been used in this image already. Panini does bend horizontal lines when they are above or below the horizon though, but not as badly as cylindrical projection. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. Support, by the way. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:Corpus Christi College New Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg ----Mdann52talk to me! 05:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)



U.S. Colonial note printed by Benjamin Franklin[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2014 at 05:18:08 (UTC)

Original – Obverse and reverse of a three pence note of colonial paper currency issued by the Province of Pennsylvania and printed by Benjamin Franklin in 1764.
Reason
High quality, high EV. Uncirculated example of an early American colonial bank note printed by Benjamin Franklin.
Articles in which this image appears
Early American currency, Benjamin Franklin
FP category for this image
Currency
Creator
Province of Pennsylvania, printed by Benjamin Franklin and David Hall
Image by Godot13
  • Support as nominatorGodot13 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The lower right corner of the left scan and the lower left corner of the right scan are bent. Maybe it would be better to straighthen them. Brandmeistertalk 09:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Brandmeister-The margins on these early notes were never perfect (although this comes fairly close). I'm not sure how to straighten them without cropping the note itself...-Godot13 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to delicately bend the margins manually to the opposite direction, but I suppose that would be rude given the note's age and historical value :) Brandmeistertalk 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Promoted File:US-Colonial (PA-115)-Pennsylvania-18 Jun 1764.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)




K. Babu[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2014 at 19:09:01 (UTC)

Original – K. Babu
Reason
Good quality, composition and High EV.
Articles in which this image appears
K. Babu
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Augustus Binu
  • Support as nominatorBellus Delphina talk 19:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Rationale? Sca (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not a fan of the lighting and the expression on the man's face. It seems like an opportunistic portrait rather than one of our best. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)



Portrait of Amalie Zuckerlandl[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2014 at 14:43:27 (UTC)

Original – Gustav Klimt - Portrait of Amalie Zuckerlandl - Belvedere
Reason
An unfinished portrait by Gustav Klimt dating from 1917-18 towards the end of his life. In his last period, Klimt was influenced by the rise of Fauvism. His paintings became more colourful and abstract in nature, and this unfinished work demonstrates his plan of execution. Otto Zuckerkandl was a distinguished surgeon. Amalie was a Christian who converted to Judaism to marry Zuckerlandl. The couple were divorced after the First World War. During the Second World War she and her daughter Nora were deported by the Nazis to the Bełżec extermination camp where they were murdered.
Articles in which this image appears
Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900, Otto Zuckerkandl
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Gustav Klimt
  • Support as nominatorCoat of Many Colours (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to support this, but I am unconvinced by the EV- in the article on the exhibition (which, naturally enough, is very heavily illustrated) the image is only used in a gallery, while I'm unconvinced of the EV of the image when it's used to illustrate the work's subject in an article about the subject's husband. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's true. I did put in something about Fauvism in the exhibition article, but it got buried, and I think that's right about its EV. I'm contemplating providing some starts for Klimt's better known paintings, but it would mean forking out a couple of hundred pounds for his catalogue raissoné. Maybe at the New Year, but I also want to write up Piet Mondrian who comes into PD next year. (CoMC abroad) 138.199.77.225 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)



Vincent van Gogh[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2014 at 03:01:52 (UTC)

OriginalVincent van Gogh, Self-portrait with pipe, 1886
Reason
I think it's very easy to over-emphasize the super-colourful van Gogh. This is a very good picture, it's subdued, it's relatively realistic, but it still has all the energy of van Gogh's style. It's very easy, with some artists to turn them into caricatures of themselves. So, to keep us a little more grounded, how about a very different self-portrait of van Gogh?
Articles in which this image appears
The Letters of Vincent van Gogh, Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh, Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent (opera), Vincent van Gogh chronology
FP category for this image
Let's put the relatively realistic depiction under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers.
Creator
Vincent van Gogh
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (regretfully). It's certainly calm and assured and valuable on that account for the reasons you put forward. The trouble is that you search in vain for a context for the portrait in Wikipedia. In most of those articles, the portrait has been selected for identification purposes and in the only article Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh where you might seek EV, it's been passed over bar placing it as an early portrait. At least the Commons file should provide context, as I did at Commons:File:Vincent van Gogh - The Old Tower at Dusk - F40 JH507.jpg for the recent Christie's sale. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Identification purposes is a valid use of an image of an artist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm sure it is. But that is at the whim of editors, who are generally allowed their personal choices. But this not Crazy Vinnie as we and all our mums know him. We do all know the real Vincent with the bandaged ear and staring eyes. You are quite laudable in the reasons you give for featuring the portrait and as I say I support them, but in vain will the reader find any of that in the article links - that in a few of his earliest Paris portraits he seemed uncharacteristically in command of himself. Except he wasn't. Not really. He had come down from Antwerp where he had suffered a breakdown. His teeth were falling out and he was worried about his personal appearance. Within six months his self-portraits betray that familiar haunted look we know so well. For this portrait to have real EV that should be written up in the articles somewhere (and there's also the question of its technical brilliance that should be mentioned and set in the context of his very far from promising start as an artist). At the moment it's not, and that's why I'm opposing. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I share COMC's concerns, but also echo that this is a regretful oppose, as I really like the work. Perhaps if it was the lead image used for identification purposes in the main Vincent van Gogh article I'd support, but, unsurprisingly, a more famous and recognisable self-portrait is used. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm somewhat inclined to make this the lead image on his article. The more famous work does a much poorer job at showing what Vincent looked like, as it's a lot more abstracted and loosely-composed, and it's probably not even the most famous (I'd say "Self-portrait with straw hat" is more commonly seen, and better composed). This portrait is far better for identification purposes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree to a certain extent, but the lead image also serves the purpose of showing the artist's style- questions may be raised about the extent to which this one does that (I'm neutral on the issue). I'm going to have to keep my oppose for now, but if the image is stable as a lead image for a few months, I would probably be prepared to support then. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
But should an identification portrait really showcase the artist's style? It could be argued that an identification portrait should have as little 'style' as possible, really, if it in any way detracts from the accuracy of the portrait. Would we use Pablo Picasso's self portrait to identify him? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I certainly have some sympathy for that view- I'm just reporting what I understand to be standard practice with painters. Whether or not we like the practice (I have no strong opinion, and see the merits of both sides) it's going to effect stability, and so we have to be aware of it. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: For the encyclopedic value alone and the fact that this already exists in multiple English Wikipedia articles. I personally think this is the better image for the Van Gogh article, but that not being the issue decided here at the moment, I vote support for this image. Fylbecatulous talk 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It is generally regarded as van Gogh's first self-portrait. The fact that it's not mentioned in the letters is the best indication it and a number of others at the same time date from the Paris period (the brothers having no cause to correspond as they were living together). It's an extremely accomplished portrait, surprisingly so when compared with the life studies he had made at the academy in Antwerp just the year before, but it is frankly rather pedestrian otherwise. He was dressing himself in city clothes at the time to stress his middle-class background, perhaps hoping to restart a conventional career as an art dealer. Marc Edo Tralbaut (his principal biographer) valorises F208a https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Gogh_-_Selbstbildnis_mit_dunklem_Filzhut.jpeg much more from this time, and in fact chose it at the dusk jacket picture of his biography, saying of it that Vincent has laid himself bare. And of course he's quite right. F208a is an absolutely magnificent self-portrait, incomparably better than F180 nominated here. Why don't you just try substituting F180 at the van Gogh article? I strongly suspect the long-suffering expert editors there will give you pretty short thrift for your trouble. 81.129.69.67 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Ugh. The Vincent Van Gogh article is full of the sort of people who'll change the lead image without warning, then hurl abuse at you if you don't like their undiscussed change, and insist you discuss your change, but not their shitty change. Seriously, I hate the current lead. I think it's easily the worst of Van Gogh's self-portraits, and the long-standing Self portrait with a straw hat lead image is far, far better. But only they have the right to undiscussed changes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Naughty Face-smile.svg ... I don't edit there myself, but it's an excellent article. I think IP above has it about right. I'll try and get a better image for F208a, maybe add at a bit at Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh, but that's a big topic. As for your nomination. I can understand your motives, but it's really not characteristic of his work, even his saai Dutch period. (CoMC abroad) 138.199.77.225 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

'Withdraw I think I'm going off doing anything with van Gogh on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • That's a shame, I was intending to support it (although obviously it would be better as lead if you could get that past the article cabal!). But I suppose getting two opposes makes it very difficult to recover from, as convention then dictates that you would need a further 6 support votes for it to clearly pass. And given the low participation levels at the moment, that's probably unlikely. *sigh* Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as works of art, I think it quite possible that low levels of participation might well have something to do with getting nominations past any cabal that may or may not itself exist here, not to mention a certain bemusement as to what the project actually means for work of arts - I mean quite what the point can be. I do take umbrage at "recover from". So long as opposers give cogent reasons for their opposition, their input should be respected. It's a bit rich that photographers who will oppose on the basis of a single blemish cry fowl when the visual arts groupies stake a claim. We do know this painting F180 (imagine!) It's very derivative of work by John Peter Russell, whom van Gogh had met in Paris and had formed a friendship with. Perhaps you don't know it, but our Vinnie was a quite insufferable companion; anyone who did take him seriously for a while likely to be lauded and praised to the sky by him (same thing Gauguin, and you can notice the same sort of tendency in a certain class of Wikipedia editors it's worth adding I think). Really it's quite uncharacteristic of van Gogh. And there's no cabal at the van Gogh article. Just a group of enthusiasts defending their own against the world and their attack dogs. (CoMC) 138.199.75.144 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you're being a bit sensitive. I'm not sure why you'd take umbrage at the words 'recover from', because it was used in terms of a successfully supported nomination requiring a significant change in the voting pattern, both in momentum shift, and in total supports votes required. The word 'recovery' would seem appropriate for this kind of turnaround. That's the context I used it in, so I don't understand how it could be controversial. I don't claim to be an expert on the artwork itself, but I don't think I necessarily need to be to have an opinion on how the image is used as for identification, because I believe the artist's style (as I mentioned earlier) is secondary to how faithful it is to his likeness. It may be not be representative of his broader work, but I don't think it needs to be in this context. I'm not, however, suggesting that I should barge in and make the change in the article single-handedly either, I'm deferring that judgement to those article editors involved. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You did sign off with a *sigh*, which I take to be unwritten wikiquette code for *dick* ... There is policy or guidance somewhere to the effect that identification pics for artists should be self-portraits wherever possible. I should have thought that implies "representative" as well, but right it's open to debate. But F180 truelly is not representative. He had come to Paris, sick and undernourished from his deprivations the previous three years. He had grown a moustache to hide his unsightly broken teeth (he had had ten extracted in Antwerp) and was endeavouring to establish himself as a conventional artist (in truth his own artistic tastes were decidedly conventional, none of that impressionist nonsense for him thank you), going as far as to join an atelier (master-classes run by established artists). But he was ridiculed by his fellow-students, forced to seek company from foreigners like Russell. This self-portrait belongs to that period when he was trying to establish himself in a conventional way, a period lasting less than six months. I can't see it's a good choice for identification purposes, nor worth featuring for its EV. F208a a quite different proposition. But I can't find a good image of it. The Van Gogh museum is supposed to be the holder but I can't find a page for it, nor is there a Google image. That might well mean they're worried about its provenance (it was discovered in 1952 in the cellars of the Stedelijk, apparently stored there by Vincent's great-nephew Willem). I'll email the VG about it and if possible get an image and write it up in time. Best I can do genuinely constructive here. 138.199.64.26 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you need to take a step back and stop reading into things so much. The *sigh* relates exclusively to the sentence that it follows; the lack of participation in FPC at the moment. It had nothing to do with any of the art politics (of which I'm not even involved!) that you seem to be so bristled by. In any case, I'd be interested to see this policy. But even if there is such a document, that doesn't mean that my opinion is overruled by the policy. We're all entitled to discuss and debate conventions as they apply to the subject in question because policy is not always right, and it doesn't always apply to all circumstances. I'm not convinced that a self-portrait is going to be more representative than a portrait by another artist, because we know very well that we as human beings are more biased towards our physical appearance, both negatively and positively, than we are to others generally, and may not necessarily portray ourselves as accurately as would be deemed necessary for an identification portrait on an encyclopaedia. I'm not saying there is no place on Wikipedia for self-portraits by any means, but I just don't think you could rightly argue that they should take precedence. If it is suggested somewhere, I would argue against it as an overarching policy. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy to take your word for it. I think I may have been guilty of misquoting the artist infobox template. You're quite right about discussing policy, but really this is not what's at issue here. There is currently a discussion about the lede image at the van Gogh article. I gather it was agreed to ring the changes from time to time. For myself I'd stick with the bandaged ear, the one from the Courtauld with a Japanese print in the background into the bargain Commons:File:VanGogh-self-portrait-with bandaged ear.jpg. The Courtauld is another museum currently making high resolution images available. I'll try and get a better, but pass on laying it on at van Gogh Face-smile.svg. 138.199.77.43 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Articles which are unwelcoming to new editors are a real pain to try to do anything to improve, so I just don't think it's worth it. Particularly when the edit summaries include accusations of bad faith, just for suggesting a different change to the one made three days previously. [Anyway, if they want to ring the changes, why not just use a randomly selected lead image? It's trivial to code.] Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I suspect the van Gogh article has had more of its fair share of new editors over the years. It's an extraordinary phenomenon this van Gogh thing. I often muse on it. He's just got to be the world's favourite painter, but he was such a total complete loser in life and god only knows what kind of a Wikipedia editor he would have made if it had been around in his time, though to be fair he kept his personal issues out of his letters. I have to confess if I was editing at van Gogh I would reverted your substitution with a request to take it to the Talk page. But you shouldn't have been made to feel unwelcome if that was so. Anyway I must sign off here. I'll be back, but perhaps not quite so frequently. I'll probably ignore most art work nominations unless I really feel moved to intervene. I do generally like the "own work" nominations though, always happy to support there. 138.199.73.37 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As an editor who has cast a vote here, I suppose I can have a stake in the matter. I have just commented on the article talk page: [[1]] to request a new discussion to gain current concessus for an image. There is decidedly a tone of article ownership there, which is one of my pet peeves. Fylbecatulous talk 13:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Although I do have an interest in art, I'm far from being an expert, so I don't often vote at Featured Picture nominations. I've read the entire discussion here, and I thought I'd add a few thoughts about possible reasons for lack of participation:

  • The use of abbreviations for terms that you all must understand, but may not be clear to newcomers, like "EV" and "VG"
  • Frequently jumping from topic to topic, from the merits of this particular portrait, to the appropriateness of the portrait, to the painter's life story, to the editing history of the article, to a speculation on the intention behind another commentator's word, to the availability of high resolution images, to threats to stop participating,... It would be nice if the discussion were a bit more focused and organized.
  • Including distracting emotional reactions and comments, and veiled and not-so-veiled criticisms of other editors:
  • you can notice the same sort of tendency in a certain class of Wikipedia editors
  • then hurl abuse at you if you don't like their undiscussed change, and insist you discuss your change, but not their shitty change
  • I do take umbrage at "recover from".
  • Using phrases such as "ring the changes" (I had never heard that expression before) and "cry fowl [sic]".
Just saying... Instead of learning something so that I might be able to participate in the future, I was totally confused. CorinneSD (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Points taken... however, I thought EV was a term used fairly commonly throughout Wikipedia, meaning 'encyclopaedic value'. It's also explained in the Featured Pictures Criteria. I'm not saying that every participant should have memorised the criteria or should be aware of every relevant acronym, but neither can it be said that it's secret code for something. You could always chime in and ask what the certain acronyms mean. We don't generally bite the newbie for asking a genuine question. The meaning of VG seemed fairly obvious in the discussion (to me, at least) to be the Van Gogh Museum, which had been mentioned by its full name in the previous sentence. Otherwise, yes, of course it would be nice if the discussion was more focused, but when there is some confusion about something, it rightly should be clarified through discussion... I noticed that the German Featured Pictures project has two separate sections in each nomination. One for the votes, and the other for 'discussion'. This would at least separate the two, and may be a better way of arranging the nominations, but I'm not sure it would necessarily keep things concise as you wished for. You mentioned some of the things that put you off participating, but how would you change FPC so that it is more inviting/informative for new participants? Most of the criticisms you had were directed towards the discussion itself and the criticisms made by individuals, rather than the process itself. Given that changing an individual's behaviour/demeanor is not necessarily without the responsibility of FPC, and we will probably always have some participants that are frustrated, angry or just discordant in nature, what could improve the things you mentioned above? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, perhaps more of an effort to make it clear what is being discussed at any one point in a long discussion. Perhaps an arbitrary section break now and then. Perhaps adding a question in bold like: Which is more important for the lead of a biographical article, that a painting be representative of a painter's work or that the painting depict the artist accurately? Perhaps making an effort not to go off on tangents. I'm sorry, I had not seen EV before. I figured out "the VG" meant "the Van Gogh Museum", but "the Van Gogh" or "the VG museum" wouldn't take much more time to type. Other than that, I really don't know. I would like to point out that something made Adam Cuerden not only withdraw his nomination but write, "I think I'm going off doing anything with van Gogh on Wikipedia", which is too bad. I don't know if that was only due to what he perceived was going on in the Van Gogh article, or not. CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:58, 27 August 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.