Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons, to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well. To see recent changes, purge the page cache

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

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

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

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

How to comment If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and are a Wikipedian, you should also notify them directly. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case. You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. Editing candidates If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g. add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (eg, Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. Is my monitor calibrated correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen) the viewing angle strongly affects these images. Click on the images for more technical information.

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review.

Current nominations

FPCs needing feedback

File:Tom Chapin portrait

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

Original – American singer and storyteller Tom Chapin

Reason

Meets WP:WIAFP criteria to be a featured picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Tom Chapin, Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album for Children

FP category for this image

/People/Entertainment

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator --Albacore (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keypunch

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

Original – A woman using a keypunch to tabulate the United States Census, circa 1890

Reason

Historic image of the way computations used to be done

Articles in which this image appears

Keypunch, United States Census, Herman Hollerith

FP category for this image

History/USA History

Creator

Unknown or not provided (image from National Archives and Records Administration)

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 03:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Girl with styrofoam swimming board

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

Original – A young girl relaxing in a pool by floating on a rainbow-coloured styrofoam swimming board

Reason

Beautiful pic with varied EV

Articles in which this image appears

Swimming float, swimming lessons, human swimming, organic chemistry

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Tommy Wong, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 02:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Baking of bread set

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

Baking of bread

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12

Reason

Really high educational value in the article Bread, a great set for an encyclopedia

Articles in which this image appears

Bread

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink

Creator

Chmee2

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Wouldn't a video be simpler? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Crisco makes a good point. I would add that if we're going to go with photographs, we should take care to eliminate some of the redundancy in this set, e.g. 9 and 10, and also how we keep looking back at those shelves with only minor changes. I think shelf shots should only be used to indicate waiting time, and they should be taken from the same angle to allow focusing on essential differences. To give another specific example, seeing the flour being applied is better than seeing the floury loaves on the shelf, and makes that second shot redundant. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• omment Each of these needs a detailed caption in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Firefighters during Yellowstone fires of 1988

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

Original – Firefighters on the fireline near Mammoth Hot Springs, September 10, 1988, during Yellowstone fires of 1988.

Reason

Good illustrative value for the article Yellowstone fires of 1988, good quality for a 1988 photo

Articles in which this image appears

Yellowstone fires of 1988

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Jim Peaco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's really foggy, I know it's not possible to take a clear shot in such place, but this is too obscure (esp. it's not easy to understand what's there in the background?!). We can find more clear images from the fired places. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Foggy? Isn't it smoke? Wouldn't you expect that from smouldering things after a fire? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Grey Heron

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

Original – A wild grey heron (ardea c. cinerea) in London Zoo, with retracted neck

Alt-1

Image originally nominated

Reason

The first nomination for this image closed a while back with 6 supports (including nominator's), 4 opposes, a weak oppose and a neutral. Numerous alternate versions were uploaded (rather late in the voting period) which fixed several of the perceived problems (unnatural background colouring and beak too close to edge of frame). Crucially, all of the opposing votes were added before the first alternate image was added, and once the first alternate image was added the only votes cast were in favour. I was wondering if the result might have been different had the problems been fixed sooner and thought the best way to find out was to renominate.

Articles in which this image appears

Grey Heron

FP category for this image

Birds

Creator

God Emperor

• Support as nominator --God Emperor^Talk 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I like the photo, but I still think my edit from the previous nom (Alt-1) is better. There are some serious noise and gradient issues in the background of your new version. However, the level of detail in the bird itself is much higher thanks to the higher resolution. There is definitely potential in this picture. O.J. (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The added EV seems to be in retraction of the neck; however, a before-and-after composite would be better to illustrate this. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The image can easily be placed next to an one with a Grey Heron with neck extended for that purpose (as it is in the article). Making the image a composite would just restrict it's use. God Emperor^Talk 17:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No, we've had noms like this before where the images were promoted as a set. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tide pool

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

Original – The side of a tide pool showing sea stars (Dermasterias), sea anemones (Anthopleura) and sea sponges in Santa Cruz, California.

Reason

Illustrative value, high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Tide pool, Biocoenosis, Ecosystem, Body of water, Intertidal ecology, Marine biology

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg

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

Original – Five-cent US postal currency, first issue, featuring Thomas Jefferson. The note is 2.5 by 1.75 inches (63.5 by 44.5 mm).

Reason

High quality, good EV. The stamp is more than 150 years old, which is quite interesting.

Articles in which this image appears

Postal currency

FP category for this image

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

Creator

United States Post Office.

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Australia women's national water polo team set

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

• 

  Alicia McCormack Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Ashleigh Southern Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Bronwen Knox Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Dalibor Maslan assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.

• 

  Gemma Beadsworth Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Glencora Ralph Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Gregory McFadden coach of the Australian women's national water polo.

• 

  Hannah Buckling Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Holly Lincoln-Smith Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Isobel Bishop Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Jane Morgan Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Kate Gynther Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Kelsey Wakefield Australian women's national water polo player

• 

  Melissa Rippon Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Nicola Zagame Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Rowena Webster Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Ryan Moar assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.

• 

  Sophie Smith Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Victoria Brown Australian women's national water polo player.

• 

  Zoe Arancini Australian women's national water polo player.

Reason

The pictures are high quality (all 1000px or above) and as a set help to give an idea as to who plays for the Australia women's national water polo team. With the exception of all the two assistant coaches, all the images are used to illustrate who a player (or coach) is on their individual article. Work best as a set as opposed to individually.

Articles in which this image appears

Bronwen Knox, Kate Gynther, Glencora Ralph,Ashleigh Southern, Nicola Zagame,Jane Moran, Holly Lincoln-Smith, Rowena Webster, Gemma Beadsworth, Melissa Rippon, Sophie Smith, Isobel Bishop, Zoe Arancini, Hannah Buckling, Alicia McCormack, Victoria Brown,Kelsey Wakefield,Greg McFadden

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Bidgee

• Support as nominator --LauraHale (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment FPs need to be used in at least one article to be promoted. Two of these images are unused. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support To have high quality photographs of an entire national squad is quite rare, and they do of course add immensely to the articles on the individuals. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I would be okay with the two assistant coaches being removed from the set. I think I could create articles for them. I think they could probably withstand an AfD, but they would only qualify under WP:GNG and I'd rather not risk that. Thus, yes, easier to remove them from the nomination. --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Can we adjust the exposures to make them consistent? For example the image of Ashleigh Southern is darker than the one of Rowena Webster. The coaches are all darker than the players. The wall could be used as a reference, but it is just as easy to look at the shutter speed, iso and aperture and work it out that way before saving from the RAWs. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The coaches pictures are darker because they were taken later that evening, rather than being a variation of the camera exposure settings. Colin°^Talk 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have the RAW files and will try to fix the exposure, though it may take a day or more since I'm busy in real life. Also, those were edited on my laptop which isn't the best to edit RAW photos from. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I have more pressing issues to deal with ATM and isn't high on my list. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question: would like to support; however, I'm concerned that as soon as the roster changes, we're going to have to start delisting. What do you guys think? Clegs (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Call the set Australia women's national water polo team 2012? The individual images will have high enough EV individually to maybe keep the set alive even after the roster changes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The precedent is that if a subject is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough for a FP. Most of these photos have corresponding individual articles, so I don't see a problem. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but I'm not sure we'd be supporting these individually. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The lighting is OK but doesn't flatter -- showing every pore and spot. The subjects are standing too close to the background, so the texture is visible as is their shadow. The 35mm-equivalent focal length of around 40mm is an odd choice for a portrait: the wide angle and being less than a metre from the subject isn't a flattering combination, especially for the nose. All the images have been cropped or downsampled to have 2k at the longest edge leaving a <4MP image from the original 18MP out of the camera. The set would be more useful if they had been cropped square rather than being almost square but varying in width and height. That all the ladies' pictures were taken within three minutes of each other tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait. Alicia, Gemma and Sophie aren't in focus. Ashleigh isn't looking at the camera. Holly is sloping to one side. Kelsey's smile is unfortunate. Rowena doesn't look happy at all. Gregory might have bothered to shave. Dalibor is too tall for the background.... --Colin°^Talk 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This was a quick photo shoot before the match, so time was limited. If I had my own way, I would have used a studio with the correct lighting but in this case it wasn't possible. Yes, the lens was a poor selection however a number of factors made me pick it. Sorry I'm fine with the criticism/critiquing but "tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait", I take that as an insult and very much why I hate FP on en Wiki and Commons. I take care with all my photographs but when you're pressed for time and you don't have the gear that would have made the difference (I'm not made of money nor do I have a money tree). If you have a problem with my downsizing, that it your problem not mine. I have my reasons to downsize and no I don't do commercial photography. Fact is your insult has me questioning whether I want to contribute any further photographs to the project. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm really sorry you have taken it this way. It wasn't meant as an insult. I'm sure you took as much care as 10-second-per-person allowed you to take. But the fact remains we are judging a featured picture here. Can I put it another way for you: Considering the photographer only had three minutes to take all these pictures, they're pretty good and make a valuable contributions to our articles on the subject. They're just not FP standard and I note that you didn't nominate them. Colin°^Talk 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • • Your comment had nothing to do with FP, it was a indirect attack at myself, by saying I do not care about anything I do. Look what happens when you have the right lighting condtions and at least I leave in the EXIF data. I noted your other constructive criticism for the future photography I do. Even with your comment striked, I still feel totally upset and humiliated to the point that I feel that there is no point in me to contribute anymore. Bidgee (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Geez Bidgee, don't leave... Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: As the quality of the pictures in terms of lens selection is an issue, some of the back story regarding the images. I asked the team media manager for permission to take pictures on Tuesday night. She arranged it so pictures could be taken two days later, at 5:10pm before the start of an international test match at 6:30pm against Great Britain, informed the players they would have their pictures taken and why they were desired. I was told the venue. There was very little flexibility available for Bidgee to play with. He had less than 48 hours notice to book a bus, arrange accommodation and chose the right camera materials for a type of picture he had very little experience taking. The venue/backdrop was chosen based on the team. The time of day was set because of the match time. It was taken inside a pool. There was an expectation by me and the media I talked to that Bidgee would take pictures of players in action during the game. At the same time, Bidgee had very, very little time to take these pictures. The time crunch was such that he took pictures of 17 women in about 5 minutes. (I had a list of their names, and recorded the picture order. Bidgee showed each player the picture after he took it.) There wasn't time enough to do much more than that. The blue back drop was a team suggestion. I think these are some of the best profile pictures taken of female athletes in any sport, and are superior to the pictures appearing on Australian Water Polo's website. Compare Bidgee's picture of Zoe Arancini to Australian Water Polo. Are they individually the best pictures ever? No, and a few could be fixed... but nothing us hugely problematic and as a set, they are in my opinion, really, really fantastic (especially given the conditions) and better than any others of their kind on Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2012 at 18:56:55 (UTC)

Original – O'Brien performing in a replica of the costume Eddie Murphy wore in Eddie Murphy Raw.

Reason

Forgive me if I'm off-base with this nomination (it's my first time here), but I found this image on Flickr and find it both visually striking and leaving me wanting to know more about the subject, on top of the fact that I'm already interested as the page in question is my next FL nomination.

Articles in which this image appears

The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour

FP category for this image

Either Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Ryan, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --– Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. At 1024 pixels wide, this image squeaks past the minimum technical requirement for a featured picture, but at that size we would have to ask for the main subject – Conan – to be sharp, and he just isn't. The digital display behind Conan introduces a distracting moiré pattern. The lighting on Conan is also doing something weird to his skin tone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor lighting, out of focus, distracting background, odd composition and technical quality. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Poor frame and poor lighting.Alborzagros (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but come back here and try again. Take a look at the current Wikipedia:Featured Pictures to see what we like. :) Pine^talk 08:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Wish I could... Visually interesting, but like some of the others have said, it's too blurry and a little on the small side. Keep trying, though :-) Clegs (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Flying Fish poster

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

Original – Promotional poster for the 2011 Sri Lankan film Flying Fish, directed by Sanjeewa Pushpakumara

Reason

High quality, interesting image, good EV, underrepresented area (Sri Lankan film)

Articles in which this image appears

Flying Fish (film)

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Sanjeewa Pushpakumara

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Nice scan job too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this is a scan. This looks like the original artwork received direct from the film producers. So what are we judging here? The photograph? -- that's been extensively manipulated? A movie poster? -- it looks pretty average and standard. Yes, technically the image is very high quality, as one would expect of an original. Any advice? Colin°^Talk 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just like File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg, we're judging the quality of the reproduction. Like works of fine art, such as the Mona Lisa or The Starry Night, we should not judge movie posters based on the design of the poster itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• The difference is that the pieces of fine art you've cited are notable by themselves. This movie poster is not. Only the movie is. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• That wasn't an issue with the above-linked posters. The only thing with higher EV would be the film itself, and technical limitations prohibit us from hosting high quality films (hard to fit it in 100mb) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a "reproduction". This is the original. So I'm not judging how well someone has scanned the image and retouched it to remove creases and coffee stains. Or how well someone has photographed a work of art in a gallery. We're judging a non-notable movie poster. Since it is an original, output from the computer of the poster designer, of course it is going to have flawless crisp writing and a high technical quality. Assuming this is a still from the film, then it illustrates the film to some degree - though the writing and the vignetting detract from that purpose, failing the "avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" if film-illustration is the EV. If displaying the movie poster is the EV then I guess it is as good as you could get. If we're judging the poster as a work of art/design then this is very unoriginal. So unoriginal, in fact, that the Film poster article could use it to illustrate the standard features of a modern movie poster. Colin°^Talk 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have decided to oppose. This has lower EV than a still from the film. A film poster is an advertisement and this is a recent/current film. Rather than being a gift we should welcome, I'm concerned that such images are being donated to WP for promotional purposes. I don't think the FPC should promote a current advert as that is just a backdoor way of getting free advertising on WP. I'm going to create a discussion on the FPC talk page about this. Colin°^Talk 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Supportgood quality as to nice scan. Alborzagros (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support the softness and brightness of the people in the image is done in a way that doesn't impress me, but this has good EV and the rest of the image is sharp. Pine^talk 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand the comparison to File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg. Those weren't promoted just because they're good scans; they're also good examples of movie posters. This is a mediocre example of a movie poster. There's nothing interesting in its design or in the underlying photograph. I don't understand Crisco's argument that we shouldn't judge the design. Why not? We judge a photograph in two ways: its encyclopedic utility in representing the subject and its aesthetic quality. So the same applies here. Chick Bowen 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• For me, EV outweighs poor posing and whatnot (assuming the poster is not completely ruined by being too dark etc.) I think that 30s to 50s era posters were more aesthetically pleasing, but times change. If you think that aesthetics is more important than EV, I cannot force you to change your mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't agree that standards have dropped that much, particularly for independent films; for example, I think Errol Morris's posters (like this one and this one) are often very effectively and innovatively designed. I salute you for finding movie posters under free licenses and you should definitely keep trying, but so far, these are not good posters, even by today's standards. Chick Bowen 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

John Cena

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 20:29:23 (UTC)

Original – Professional wrestler and rapper John Cena making his entrance at the 2010 WWE Tribute to the Troops

Reason

Nice capture of the ceremonial entrance made by competitors before professional wrestling matches. Would be first pro wrestling FP. Borderline on pixel threshold but still good resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

John Cena, professional wrestling, WWE Tribute to the Troops

FP category for this image

People/Entertainment

Creator

Alexander Vaughn, from Flickr

• Support as nominator --—Eustress ^talk 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - His face is not like John Cena. ●Mehran ^Debate● 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Too generic to have much EV for wrestling topics (muscley guy in T-shirt, could be anybody anywhere - you have to already know something about the subject to be able to place it in a wrestling context). And as Mehran said, the face is too distorted to allow recognition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this image is below the Wikipedia:Featured Picture Criteria recommended minimum of 1000 pixels on at least one side of the image, and the face is distorted. Pine^talk 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, no excuse for having a pic of a pro wrestler and not showing his hands. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You know what he's doing with his hands, just look at his shirt for a hint —Eustress ^talk 02:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's even more of a shame that we can't see them then! J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Griffith Observatory

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 19:19:46 (UTC)

Original – Griffith Observatory is an observatory in Los Angeles, California, United States. It is a popular tourist attraction with an extensive array of space- and science-related displays.

Reason

High EV, great shot

Articles in which this image appears

Griffith Observatory, Griffith Park, John C. Austin, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Hollywood, List of museums in Los Angeles, California

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Mfield

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Caption should probably be more succinct, per WIAFP:7a (see also CAP#Succinctness). —Eustress ^talk 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've shortened it. Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Caption issued resolved, excellent photo —Eustress ^talk 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support That is stunning! At full zoom, it's a bit soft, but still passable. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment tree to the right of the door (as it appear in the pic) appears strangly blured. Stitching error?©Geni 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support I agree with Aaadddaaammm about softness. Pine^talk 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Good quality. Clegs (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Hooping Life

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 11:31:26 (UTC)

Original – The film poster for the upcoming documentary The Hooping Life, by Amy Goldstein

Reason

High resolution, interesting pose. We rarely have free posters for new or at least recent films, so this is a nice breath of fresh air.

Articles in which this image appears

The Hooping Life, Amy Goldstein

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Amy Goldstein

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: She's really noisy. Does that have an impact on quality considerations, or is that moot because the original is that way? Clegs (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have an issue with it. It's better than the old-school way of doing these posters, like on File:Deep Throat poster 2.jpg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder whether it's an intentional effect. Brandmeister t 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Possible. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Image noise is a hurdle for me, and since I can't determine whether it is intentional or just poorly done, I must vote on the default, which is the standard FP guideline of no image noise or graininess. —Eustress ^talk 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Eustress. Pine^talk 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As with the "Flying Fish poster", this is not a scan but the original poster artwork direct from some designer's PC. The poster is dire. The photo quality is dire. The article this image appears in is dire and appears to contain nothing but the blurb from the back of the DVD. I suspect WP is being used to promote this film. Rather than being "a nice breath of fresh air", something smells here. Colin°^Talk 13:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Entirely possible, but (assuming the film is eventually released) any possible promotion on behalf of the filmmaker is actually beneficial to the encyclopedia. Images, especially posters and whatnot which are the same no matter where they are published, are generally more NPOV than text. I wouldn't mind more people with high quality posters or other works donating them to the encyclopedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand your "more NPOV than text"? The poster contains cheery-picked review comments, as all posters do. That's as POV as you can get. Colin°^Talk

• Those are text, not pure images. Note that I said "generally". Images like File:Poster - Gone With the Wind 01.jpg are fairly NPOV in my opinion. For a POV image, we can look at different poses of Barack Obama. A supporter might like his official portrait or one of him working, while a detractor will look for a picture of him scratching his behind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I don't think that is all noise, I think some of that has to do with the background of the poster being textured. I think the poster looks very cool and different than your average everyday movie poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrh180 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

NYPD Ford Crown Victoria

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2012 at 05:07:40 (UTC)

Original – A Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor car of the New York City Police Department

Reason

large clear image, in multiple articles, good EV

Articles in which this image appears

Police vehicles in the United States and Canada, Police car, Police transport, Law enforcement, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, Ford Crown Victoria, Law enforcement in the United States, New York City Police Department, United States

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Cezary Piwowarski [[1]]

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 05:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This photo has been in some articles for more time than other articles, but I'm not expecting anyone to remove this image from enough of these articles to make a significant difference in EV. Pine^talk 05:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose good photo but not very striking. Plus it's arguable that the design schemes of police cars may as a whole be subject to copyright even if none of the individual elements would be. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Being striking is not a requirement for Featured Pictures; please see Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. Regarding your concern about copyright, wouldn't it be illegal to take photos of lots and lots of vehicles if that was the case? Pine^talk 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". That's what the FPC say. While I find this to be an effective illustration, certainly enough to be a quality image on Commons, I don't find it compelling. It's just an NYPD car on the street. That's all it wants to tell me, and all it can.

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

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

• • • See also [[2]] Pine^talk 09:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly on technical grounds. There is a post blocking the tyre of the car and the background is rather busy. Legal considerations are that it may need to have it's license plate blurred as it is still on the road and the design scheme mentioned above. Most cars, if they have a plain paint job, probably don't apply. However, a specific paint design may be copyrightable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I can understand how an elaborate paint job might be copyrightable. However, if paint jobs on police cars are copyrightable, it seems to me that the absurd result is that no photos of police cars would be permitted on Wikipedia. The same would go for uniforms of many kinds of private and government workers. Although I'm not a lawyer, I would think that the design is not sufficiently creative to qualify for copyright protection. Pine^talk 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • About the copyright. The painting is constituted of a blue line and some text, like POLICE (it would be PD-Textlogo, below the threshold of originality) and a logo, which is de minimis. I don't think based on those elements the composition in itself is copyrightable. If you don't share those views, you're free to open a DR in Commons, to settle the matter. --Dereckson (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Just a note that I've also requested comments about the copyright from administrators Moonriddengirl and J Milburn. If others would also like to express views please feel free. Pine^talk 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Note that I said "may". My oppose is mainly for the technical issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks for clarifying. Since there seems to be concern about the copyright I think that it's reasonable to try to get a definitive resolution. I understand why there is concern although my feeling is that in this particular case the paint job isn't copyrightable. Pine^talk 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Aside from the logo, I agree. As noted by Dereckson, in this particular case the logo is probably de minimis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Failing any definitive (and unlikely) evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest all further votes should simply focus on the image and not concern themselves with the copyright mumbo-jumbo. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Short answer: It's fine. Long answer: IANAL. That said, I think it's alright. Obviously, the car itself is not copyrightable, while the logo is. The paint-job, theoretically, could be. The logo is quite clearly de minimis, and so its inclusion is fine. The paint-job isn't, but it seems simple enough that it would be PD anyway. (To pre-empt, freedom of panorama does not apply here at all.) If there are any issues that could come up here, it is the inclusion of the numberplate, not copyright. There will also presumably be laws about misrepresenting the police (y'know, implying endorsement, suggesting that you are a police officer, that sort of thing) but providing that this is used appropriately in context, that shouldn't be a problem. J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not gonna argue the EV here, but there's too many distracting elements (post in front of car, very busy background) for it to be a FP. Clegs (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

English stonecrop

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2012 at 13:41:26 (UTC)

Original – English stonecrop, Sedum anglicum, on Treffgarne Rocks, Pembrokeshire, Wales.

Alt – English stonecrop, Sedum anglicum, on Treffgarne Rocks, Pembrokeshire, Wales.

Reason

This image exemplifies triumph in adversity, a hardy plant flourishing in a crack in the rock. (This is my first nomination for Featured picture.)

Articles in which this image appears

Sedum anglicum

FP category for this image

plants

Creator

Cwmhiraeth

• Support as nominator --Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Blown highlights on the petals (they are very white, not textured) and the framing leaves a little to be desired. I'd want some more head room around the plant; right now it seems cut off at both the top and bottom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose both per overexposure. Darkening the picture doesn't fix the loss of detail that happened when the original was overexposed. Clegs (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per above, and because the busy, detailed background prevents the viewer to distinguish the plant from the rock very well. Spencer^T♦C 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose both good EV, and the background is OK because it shows this organism in its regular habitat according to the article, but the image lacks sharpness when viewed at full size. Pine^talk 08:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Craig Johnson

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 18:21:29 (UTC)

Original – American novelist Craig Johnson speaking about his latest books in Médiathèque José Cabanis, Toulouse, France, 2011.

Alt

Alt-2. WB adjustment and selective noise reduction.

Reason

High quality, good portrait of high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Craig Johnson (author)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Guillom

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support both edits Tomer T (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment White balance is too yellow and needs fixing. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added an edit. Tomer T (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support edit My only remaining gripe is the noise levels. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support edit -- Interesting pose. Edit has better colouring and somehow seems to have less noise. The hand is out of focus, but no biggy. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Added Alt-2. I adjusted the WB and applied some selective noise reduction. O.J. (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Either Edit with pref to Alt2. Good portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs)

• Oops. Yeah, that was me. Clegs (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Still a lot of noise on the underside of his hat. God Emperor^Talk 16:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Photo is from an awkward angle, there's a shadow over part of face from hat, head is positioned behind body since leaning back, blurry microphone in foreground is distracting —Eustress ^talk 02:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mezcala Bridge 2nd try

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 09:24:56 (UTC)

Original – Mezcala Bridge in Mexico.

Reason

Large image with good EV for the article, already featured on Commons, previous FP nomination failed by only a half vote.

Articles in which this image appears

Mezcala Bridge

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jujutacular

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 09:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support as nominator at commons. Tomer T (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: It's a very good shot. Well positioned and clear. ComputerJA (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The fisheye effect from the stitching is blowing it for me. Also, about a quarter of the image doesn't actually show the bridge. Crisco 1492(talk) 05:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Great shot. The extra on the left showing the area's scenery is part of what makes it so good, IMO. Clegs (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Crisco, the fisheye effect distorts the view for me. —Eustress ^talk 02:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hiram Wesley Evans

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 03:02:17 (UTC)

Original – Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan Hiram Wesley Evans in Washington, D.C. on 8 August 1925

Edit – Cropped to focus on the subject

Reason

High quality and resolution, illustrative of both the main subject and his position in the KKK

Articles in which this image appears

Hiram Wesley Evans, Grand Wizard

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

National Photo Company, restored by Crisco 1492

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm gunna make a very unpopular move, against pretty much everything WP stands for, and oppose due to the subject. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Considering we promoted this image of lynching (very graphic, so it'll never be on the front page), I don't think this is a criteria. I agree that we should not look like we are supporting the KKK, but we are also an encyclopedia. The Klan is, unfortunately, something we cover. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the image also should not be on the main page if it gets promoted (like lynching and some other). Brandmeister t 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have no issue with that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose both on composition grounds. The background is too distracting. Essentially its a snapshot taken in 1925. Old yes, but a snapshot is still a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• And the edit? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose both. Sorry, but I don't see this as a very compelling photograph, with a strange severity in the focus contrast between the subject and the rather busy background (and the crop only calls more attention to that severity), nor does it have particular historical value, since it doesn't illustrate anything in particular happening. In defense of Adam above, I think the comparison to the lynching picture is not very apt; that picture shows an example of an event that played a huge role in American history; this one is just a guy in a costume. Chick Bowen 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Canberra Capitals vs Logan Thunder

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:06:11 (UTC)

Original – WNBL teams Logan Thunder in white and Canberra Capitals in blue battle for the ball in a game on 20 January 2012

Crop

Reason

Per the other basketball nom.

Articles in which this image appears

Women's National Basketball League, Logan Thunder,

FP category for this image

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

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment While this has good EV, it lacks impact. A tighter crop around the players might help - all the empty seats in the background detract from the action the photo shows (though they do sadly illustrate the difficulty elite female sports teams have attracting crowds). Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Had a go at a crop. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Support crop Good quality and good EV (as noted above, the somewhat barren background sadly adds to the EV here). Nice work. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree--cropping out some of the dead space at the bottom might add to the BANG factor.
• Support crop -- Impressive, especially since you were close to 100 metres (330 ft) away from the action when taking this shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Not that far. EXIF says 25.3 meters ;). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Odd, it looked bigger. Either way, good shot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support crop. Excellent action shot. Clegs (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question: Is this during an actual game? I'm just wondering because I don't see any fans in the seats... Spencer^T♦C 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but most of the fans were on either side the court, rather than at the ends. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly. By my count the arena wasn't even half full. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

White-necked Petrel

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 01:04:16 (UTC)

Original – White-necked Petrel (Pterodroma cervicalis), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

This image is a little smaller than some others that I nominated (the bird was further away). However, this is the only confirmed sighting of this bird within Tasmanian waters, and this, and one other photo that I collected are the only images on commons of this species.

Articles in which this image appears

White-necked Petrel

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Good shot. Question should the black be a little darker, or is the bird more of a white and medium gray? Never seen this species (they don't make it to the eastern US), but to my eyes, the pictures looks like it could use a little more contrast. Clegs (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Which bit of the plumage are you referring to? Apart from when breeding on a few islands, it is an open sea bird, and highly unlikely to be seen from land anywhere, not just the eastern US :). JJ Harrison (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very good, at 1.7 MP is the resolution lower than your usual? Not that it matters. --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Almost an abstraction ... I caught myself wondering what company logo this was. Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Daniel. The composition with the sea and the angle of the wings is very pleasing. --Colin°^Talk 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support All reason above. Alborzagros (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvin's Albatross

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2012 at 00:59:48 (UTC)

Original – Salvin's Albatross (Thalassarche salvini), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

Prior to this cooperative bird I've only had one or two brief flybys on previous trips. It was once considered a subspecies of the Shy Albatross. Most of this species breed on the Bounty Islands, 670 km south east of New Zealand.

Articles in which this image appears

Salvin's Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support tail seems a little OOF, but otherwise I like this. Pine^talk 09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. Clegs (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support with a question. Is that the original saturation? Interesting colour for the water... Of course, last time I was on the open(-ish) sea it was in the Sunda Strait which was more light teal in colour. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite natural, and mostly a reflection of the sky. Air pollution would most likely mean that Indonesia's sky is a different colour. I think the significant water depth difference (several kilometers vs tens of meters) could help a colour change too - it is easy to stir up sediment in shallow water. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah. As I was between southern Kalianda and Sebuku, it was much shallower. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support very good, has this been nominated before? --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, but I have nominated one or two other images of different species with a similar composition before. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide time zones

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 10:54:13 (UTC)

Original – Map of the world's Time Zones. The explanation for the codes is near the lower left corner of the image.

Alternative.

Reason

High EV, meets size criteria, good level of detail

Articles in which this image appears

Time Zone

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps

Creator

Phoenix B 1of3

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: some of the numbers (esp. around Nepal and Myanmar) are very hard to read. Any chance we could get a larger version? Does that work with PNGs? Clegs (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Added alternative. This one is larger and more aesthetically pleasing. O.J. (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Definitely alt much better than the original nomination. I think the date line could be better emphasized and labelled. It misses Antarctica, and does not indicate territories with daylight saving time. Oppose original for dizzying colour scheme, inconsistent font size and lack of detail due to limited resolution. --ELEKHH^T 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Diagrams like these are much better as SVGs. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been thinking for a while that some version of a timezone map needs featuring, but I don't think it's either of these for the various reasons already mentioned above, esp. Elekhh and Makeem. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alt is out of date, with Samoa and American Samoa on different sides of the date line. Russia also changed something recently, IIRC, I'm not sure if this is correct here either. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not out of date so far as I can see. Samoa and American Samoa are now on opposite sides of the date line. The Russian time zone changes of 2011 seem to all be up to date. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Askalan (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Polet Airlines An-124 RA-82075

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 02:59:36 (UTC)

Original – A Polet Antonov An-124 landing at Sheremetyevo Airport

Reason

Extremely high quality image of this aircraft in landing configuration which is prominently placed in the aircraft article infobox

Articles in which this image appears

Antonov An-124

FP category for this image

link to category from WP:FP that best describes the image (check categories first)

Creator

Sergey Kustov

• Support as nominator --Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. High quality, excellent representation of this aircraft. Clegs (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think this could do with reframing to give it a bit more lead room. No land marks visible and a uniform background, so no problem with that. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support good EV, high clarity, large photo. Pine^talk 11:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Nice image, good quality. Nice to see what it looks like before landing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Electric steam iron

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 22:16:13 (UTC)

Original – A modern electric steam iron made by Russell Hobbs.

Reason

This is a typical product shot isolated on white as you might get from a stock photo agency. This image is high-resolution, sharp and in focus from front to back. The angled profile shows off the steam plate as well as the handle, at the expense of the controls. We currently have no featured pictures of small domestic appliances and this category of images is poorly covered by WP/Commons. Btw, the soleplate has a textured speckle finish -- that's not noise. I hope you like it.

Articles in which this image appears

Clothes iron, Russell Hobbs.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Other

Creator

Colin

• Support as nominator --Colin°^Talk 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: My only niggling issue is that the reflection is cut off. I get that you wanted it so it doesn't look like it's floating, but perhaps a short shadow would have achieved that effect. So I dunno.. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - OK, well as I said it was just a minor thing that I noticed and since no one else has an issue with it my qualm has been relieved. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good quality, high EV. Didn't notice the shadow until it was pointed out, so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Clegs (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I'm missing where the reflection is cut off, so unless someone can point that out more specifically to me and the cut seems bad, I'm supporting. Pine^talk 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- I have no issues with the reflection. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Suppprt per comments above --e^xtra999 (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I love the way the angles converge near the tip. And that it's purple ... not a color we usually think of when we think of irons. And the detail. It's so crisp. I can see some CA along the edge near the top at the highest resolution but ... it's so slight that I think it would be impudent to base an oppose vote on it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I bought this very model and in this colour last year based soley on aesthetics. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Crisco 1492 and Daniel Case and Saffron Blaze's reasons. Alborzagros (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Works Progress Administration Maid Poster

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 17:50:56 (UTC)

Original – A poster advertising the Works Progress Administration's Household Service Demonstration Project.

Reason

This is a high quality WPA poster

Articles in which this image appears

Household Service Demonstration Project

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Works Progress Administration. Digitised by the Library of Congress. Uploaded by Ras67 (talk · contribs)

• Support as nominator --Guerillero | My Talk 17:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose support Quite small filesize (609 KB, probably because of poor digitalization), blurry, but good subject anyway. Brandmeister t 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is the file size, not the pixel count, the measuring stick you are using? --Guerillero | My Talk 18:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the image is a bit small for a poster (that is probably smaller than the original dimensions). Brandmeister t 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone please take a clone tool and remove those smudge marks, cement-colored spots, etc. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Poor quality, blurry and smudge spots. Clegs (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ginevra de' Benci

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 06:46:08 (UTC)

Original – Leonardo da Vinci's Ginevra de' Benci, a c. 1474 oil on panel painting measuring 38.1 cm × 37 cm (15.0 in × 15 in). It is named after its subject.

Reason

High resolution, notable work by notable artist.

Articles in which this image appears

Ginevra de' Benci, List of works by Leonardo da Vinci, +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Leonardo da Vinci

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support large, good quality image of work by notable artist. Pine^talk 09:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support A beautiful image, wonderful background, excellent detail and by the master. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Awesome. —Eustress ^talk 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Exquisite. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominations older than 9 days — to be closed

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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

Leaden Flycatcher

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

Original – Leaden Flycatcher (Myiagra rubecula), Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra, Australia

Edit1 – adjusted levels and mild sharpening

Edit 2 - saturation more consistent with original.

Reason

An attractive Flycatcher I spotted in a few places around Canberra. I didn't manage a shot until this male at the Botanic gardens though.

Articles in which this image appears

Leaden Flycatcher

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all Has a snapshotty feel and continues the recent trend for over-exposure. [3] is an example of a better composition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The bird is white, not grey. The exposure is correct on a calibrated sRGB display. I was there. Said calibration includes a luminance level (how bright the display is) and ambient illuminance level (how bright the room is). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • We don't even need to talk about the bird, there's plenty of evidence all over the picture that this is overexposed. Whatever your procedure was, that's one smotherbucking skewed histogram you've produced there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per PLW2. I don't feel it has a snapshot look to it, but it is slightly over exposed. Dusty777 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Edit1 uploaded. Adjusted levels per above concerns and added mild sharpening. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Cranking up the saturation isn't going to help matters much. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Didn't touch it if you'd care to actually read my image editing summary stated in three different places. --jjron (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Check the saturations (if you know how), they are different. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Don't care, because as already stated four times, they weren't touched. It seems that both God and Adobe work in mysterious ways ... --jjron (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
          • No, it's just your technical understanding that's lacking. You don't have to actually manually change saturation in order for it to be affected by what you're doing. Think about it, do some experimentation. I know you won't, but don't come back later and say I didn't encourage you to try it for yourself. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
            • You're welcome. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Edit1 after further consideration. --jjron (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support edit 1 looks good. Pine^talk 10:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support edit Good shot. Clegs (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Edit Per above Dusty777 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support both with a preference on the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support edit but I do agree with PLW2 that the edit too saturated and the original is too bright (so am still hoping for edit 2). --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we're all waiting for Mr. Harrison to redo it from RAW, are we not? Since you were happy enough to support a jpeg version, I've added an appropriate edit. However, the loss of detail on the breast can only be remedied from RAW, so I'm not going to support my own edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and yes, for the record, even if we don't get a RAW-remix from JJ, I support Edit 2 as my preference amongst those avaiable. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

• Preference for Edit 1, Edit 2 is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Preference for Edit 2, Edit 1 is okay. Pine^talk 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Edit1. --jjron (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• No preference. Clegs (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• In order to break the deadlock, I'm going to say Prefer Edit 1. Clegs (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the March archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
4. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
5. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~

   • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:

   Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Add the image to:
   • Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
   • Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
   • Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.

   The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.

   Don't forget to update the count too.

5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
9. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
10. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the March archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
11. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Nominations for delisting

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it can be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. Note, however, that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s. Use the tool below to nominate for delisting. Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Delist closing procedure

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

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

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
4. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
4. Decrement the count at the top of Wikipedia:Featured pictures.
5. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
6. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.

If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
   • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.

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

Recently closed nominations

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

Turret loading picture set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 11:07:40 (UTC)

Original – Photo 1: USS Iowa's Turret Two center gun is loaded to fire. First, a 1,900-pound (860 kg) shell is moved from the shell hoist cradle into the spanning tray to be rammed into the gun breech.

Photo 2:Next, the powder bags are rolled from the two-tiered powder hoist (top) into the spanning tray.

Photo 3:Finally, the rammerman, at left, operates a lever which uses hydraulics to ram the powder bags into the gun's breech. The spanning tray is then folded out of the way and the breech block is closed and locked. The rammerman must carefully operate the ram lever as an overram could jam the powder bags and/or projectile too far into the gun, causing a dangerous situation. On 19 April 1989 this same gun exploded and killed 47 crewmembers in the turret.

Reason

I'm nominating these three images as a set. They appear in the article USS Iowa turret explosion to illustrate how the ship's turret guns are loaded normally. An explosion occurred in the Number Two 16-inch gun turret on April 19, 1989. The explosion in the center gun room killed 47 of the turret's crewmen and severely damaged the gun turret itself. Two major investigations were undertaken, one by the Navy and then one by the then-General Accounting Office and Sandia National Laboratories.

Articles in which this image appears

USS Iowa turret explosion. Also, I have added the first image to Gun turret.

FP category for this image

Engineering and technology/Weaponry

Creator

PHAN William Holck, USN

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 11:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if someone could make these images appear side by side instead of showing up vertically here in FPC. Thanks! Pine^talk 11:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you to J Milburn for help with formatting. Pine^talk 11:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the camera angle. Pics 2-3 look like the guys are standing on the wall (not that it is that BIG of a deal, it just gives me a headache, and reduces the enjoyability of looking at the pictures), and there is a guys hand in the right side of each picture (causes distraction from the main subject), and there is some noise/graininess throughout all of the pictures (not that big of a deal, the pictures are 26 years old, and with film, comes some grain.) The pictures have excellent EV, but I don't believe it can outweigh these minor issues. Dusty777 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice set, but the first picture should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. All photos could use some chroma noise filtering. O.J. (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is indeed a lot of grain. I have a sneaking suspicion this is a scan of a print, not a negative, and not necessarily a great print either. Is there something unusually rare about these to offset that quality problem? Wouldn't this have been done in pretty much the same way many times on any ship with guns of this size and type? Chick Bowen 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • These photos were taken in the same turret that exploded in an incident that killed 47 crewmen. See USS Iowa turret explosion. Pine^talk 05:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I got that. I meant, is there anything distinctive about this set up or the process they're following? I mean, if the purpose is to show the right way to do this in contrast to the wrong way that led to the disaster, then it seems like a series that showed what was going on in a clearer way would be more valuable, even if it was taken in a different (but similar) turret. Chick Bowen 19:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Henry Lawrence Garrett III

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 10:24:53 (UTC)

Original – Official US Navy photo of Henry Lawrence Garrett III, United States Secretary of the Navy. The photo was taken in 1987. Secretary Garrett was in office from May 15, 1989 to June 26, 1992 in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Reason

Good quality portrait of a notable person.

Articles in which this image appears

Henry Lawrence Garrett III, United States Secretary of the Navy, USS Iowa turret explosion

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

James P. Vineyard

• Support as nominator. I'm aware that this photo has some noise issues but given the age of the photo I think it's acceptable. --Pine^talk 10:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but while this image is useful, it's not of high quality. Garrett is in a fairly awkward and artificial pose, and the fact that half his face is in shadow is quite problematic. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral -- I like the pose, but the graininess bugs me. We have older images that are sharper. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Quality and EV are acceptable. No reason not to feature that I can see. Clegs (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Redback spider

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 00:54:30 (UTC)

Original – The female Redback spider (Latrodectus hasseltii) is one of the most dangerous spiders endemic to Australia. Its body is about 10mm long.

Reason

An illustrative pose of a very important living Australian Spider (featuring its distinguishing red mark). The photo took quite some effort to obtain, because the subject is small and uncooperative (and dangerous), but I am very happy with the result in terms of quality and composition. An earlier FP of this species was rightly delisted in 2007 Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Redback_spider, but may serve as a comparison.

Articles in which this image appears

Redback spider

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Technically speaking, it's quite noisy and not all that sharp when you zoom up all the way, but it looks nice enough at a 50% zoom (which I think still would meet the size requirements) and it's big on wow factor, and has great EV.126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

::Clerk note: Votes from IP addresses cannot be counted. Clegs (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"are generally disregarded" ≠ "cannot be counted". Not that I expect you to count it, but I think you should quote the rule as it is, without making it stricter. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, this is perfectly accurate: "Per resolved discussion on the talk page, votes from this IP are to be ignored." Clegs (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with the IP but whether the user was voting while logged in. That said the IP is getting tedious by voting when he is aware they are to be disregarded. The IP user should just make a comment as they will be welcome. In either case stop commenting on the votes to be disregarded and allow the closer to handle the tally. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per noise. To the anom, the rules state that we judge based on full size, not an arbitrary zoom level. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question Would you like me to upload an alt at the minimum required resolution of 531x1000? Thankfully as far as I can read the rules don't "state" anything of the sort, because if they did, that would encourage uploaders to do a bad thing (downsample). Rather, the criteria ask you to judge the technical standard (yes including noise). To do that fairly across different sized images, the best way is to compare them at equivalent sizes to one another (say, perhaps the 1000px, since some pics will come in at that size). I'm not saying you shouldn't look at the full-res, but the IP's argument is sound. --99of9 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• 50% is not an "arbitrary" zoom level, as it's above the minimum requirements. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Blurry and noisy. If reshot in focus with a better camera, it could be easily an FP. Clegs (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There isn't a problem with the camera. We have hundreds of FPs with that model, including recently. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that the noise comes from a combination sharpening something that wasn't very sharp to begin with and correcting underexposure, but there is too much of it and not much detail there. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  I imagine it is also due to shooting the spider at f/16. At high magnification, this aperture is going to give you significant diffraction softening, but the trade off is that you get the entire spider in focus (including the legs), which is otherwise impossible without focus stacking. Spiders are especially challenging to get past FPC. Either people complain that your image isn't sharp enough/high res enough or they complain that it isn't all in focus. Unless it's a relatively large spider, it's very difficult to do both. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, you're both right. Next time I will ensure that I don't underexpose. The exposure was automatically chosen, which was no good for so much white paper and a black subject. But I think f/16 was the right choice for this, because spiders are very three dimensional (and the body-focus was accurate).--99of9 (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Silhouette Volleyball

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 23:11:06 (UTC)

Original – silhouette is the image of a person, an object or scene consisting of the outline and a basically featureless interior, with the silhouetted object usually being black.

Reason

high resolution and EV, good exampel of Silhouette

Articles in which this image appears

silhouette

FP category for this image

Creator

درفش کاویانی

• Support as nominator --Mamad ^TALK 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Currently, this is just another picture in the gallery of a heavily-illustrated article. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per JMilburn. Clegs (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per JMilburn. I don't see how this picture will really add any exceptional EV to the article over the other 29 pictures already in the article. Dusty777 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per EV issues. I love the photo --Guerillero | My Talk 02:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with other comments about EV. Pine^talk 09:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- It is a good picture. However, the subject matter is not important (combination of distinctive, encyclopedic, rare, creative, ...) enough for it to be featured. Sumanch (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese boat people waiting rescue

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 00:28:57 (UTC)

Original – 35 Vietnamese refugees wait to be taken aboard the amphibious command ship USS BLUE RIDGE (LCC-19). They are being rescued from a 35 foot fishing boat 350 miles northeast of Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, after spending eight days at sea.

Reason

While the image quality can be made better, I think this image is historically significant because it captured a moment in time during the height of the Vietnamese refugee crisis during the 1970s and 1980s. This image succinctly illustrates the plight of the boat people at the time, showing the cramped condition of the boat and showing men, women, and children at the moment they are rescued after being at sea for days.

Articles in which this image appears

boat people

FP category for this image

Other History

Creator

Phil Eggman, United States Navy

• Support as nominator --DHN (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose -- Striking but blurry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose good EV but I agree with Crisco 1492 about the image quality. Pine^talk 09:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support -- I think we can ignore the slight problems with image quality due to historical significance. Could do with a better name than Vietnamese Boat People waiting rescue though. Zibart (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Experiments in the Revival of Organisms

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2012 at 08:34:03 (UTC)

Original – Experiments in the Revival of Organisms, a 1940 motion picture which documents Soviet research into the resuscitation of clinically dead organisms. The British scientist J. B. S. Haldane appears in the film's introduction and narrates the film, which contains Russian text with English applied next to, or over the top of, the Russian. The operations are credited to Doctor Sergei S. Bryukhonenko.

Reason

High EV for the article, fairly high quality considering technical limitations

Articles in which this image appears

Experiments in the Revival of Organisms

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other

Creator

Techfilm Studio, Moscow

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Its kind of impressive. Personally, I would prefer a video about half as long (close to 20 minutes is quite a while, especially if some people are not as particularly interested as others.) Dusty777 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• And resolution could be higher at that length. Sadly, a shorter clip would have less EV as it would not show the whole film. As the article is about the film, the entirety easily has the highest EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I wonder if it couldn't slot into Cardiopulmonary bypass and/or something on animal experimentation. I vote having watched the first 15 mins, still watching the rest. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very interesting, especially the revival of severed dog's head. I agree, however, that the footage deserves a higher resolution. Brandmeister t 23:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed entirely. Once the software supports it, we could look for a 200 mb file or something similar. Until then... Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Tomer T (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Experime1940.ogv --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2012 at 18:29:10 (UTC)

Original – Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor as a young Archduke. Anonymous work c. 1520

Reason

It is of very high resolution and it helps illustrate the article a bit better. It also has a free license due to its age.

Articles in which this image appears

Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, Joanna of Castile, Philip I of Castile

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Originally, it was Gryffindor, but I edited the description with various new details about the picture and uploaded an image of better quality.

• Support as nominator --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Great quality. --KFP (contact - edits) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Since there's no source cited, presumably you've redated it to c. 1514 based on the subject's estimated age, but there's no reason to suspect that the curators at the Kunsthistorisches Museum picked c. 1520 at random. Yomangani^talk 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• RE:Comment Well, the site I got it from , which I trust totally, gave his estimated age as 10 or 12, which would give the years 1513 and 1515, so the picture should be dated to c. 1514. Also, in 1520, he would have been 17 years old. And he did leave Spain before he was 13, he was, at most, 12 years old when this picture was painted, he was most probably in Spain. Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Kunsthistorisches Museum also gives his age as ten to twelve, but puts a c. 1520 date on the painting [4]. There is no further information on the date attribution on their site, but since it is also attributed to a southern German anonymous artist, presumably they believe that it was completed at a later date. I don't think you can assign the painting a new date purely on the basis of the estimated age of the sitter. (I removed the "in Spain" from the caption as it is conjecture and isn't really necessary.) Yomangani^talk 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Yomangani; the date should be taken from reliable sources. Most likely this is a copy of another painting, so it wouldn't necessarily be up-to-date at the time it was painted. Chick Bowen 17:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support good quality image, good EV. Pine^talk 09:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question What happened to the margin on the right? There's a margin of uniform paint on every side except the right - it gives the impression of being cut off. What's the story there? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Answer There is no story. That's just how the picture is. It's not cut off, check both sources on the info page. Even the Kunsthistorisches Museum has this version. Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support well captured. --TehGrauniad (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Anonym Kaiser Ferdinand I.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Husn Banu Ghazanfar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2012 at 23:07:46 (UTC)

Original – Husn Banu Ghazanfar, Afghanistan's Minister of Women's Affairs

Reason

Good-quality portrait, counters systemic bias

Articles in which this image appears

Husn Banu Ghazanfar, Ministry of Women's Affairs (Afghanistan)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

US Embassy, Kabul, Afghanistan

• Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A full face picture would fit the subject better. Kind of out of focus also. Dusty777 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Weak Support if the white balance is fixed - it is too blue. It isn't out of focus at all, the depth of field is just shallow (which isn't a good thing in this case). JJ Harrison (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dusty. Feels like a snapshot. Clegs (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support good EV and size but agree that a full face photo would be better. Pine^talk 09:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sammy Davis, Jr.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 19:08:54 (UTC)

Original – Sammy Davis, Jr., 1986 portrait by Allan Warren

Reason

I think it's a great portrait with high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Sammy Davis, Jr.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Allan Warren

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. So nice to have Warren's work licensed for use here. —Eustress ^talk 23:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, not a vote, yet. The image seems noisy and to have a pretty shallow DOF. Clegs (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Askalan (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - looks wonderful and there's no reason why this picture should have a deeper DOF, it looks great as it is - it's not as if the background is distracting. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

IPs must log in to have their votes counted. Thanks. Clegs (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question Why that facial expression for the lead image of the article? The other images may be smaller but the expressions look more normal for a portrait photo. I need more explanation of how this photo with this expression has strong EV. Pine^talk 09:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support nice to see a great picture of such a great jazz artist --Guerillero | My Talk 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Pine put forth a good question. My perception of Sammy Davis Jr is far removed from the sullen looking man in this photo. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As his biography shows, he was a complex man; his life was complicated. He had ups but he also had huge downs. It's an expressive portrait. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Sammy Davis Jnr Allan Warren.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

1929 Belgian banknote

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 17:26:17 (UTC)

Original – The frontside (top) and backside of the 10,000 Belgian franc banknote of 1929, designed by Constant Montald, approximate size 220x134,5 mm (description).

Reason

A very arty example of the oldschool banknotes, with inscriptions in several languages, notable designer. The bleed-through of the original scans has been largely fixed.

Articles in which this image appears

Belgian franc

FP category for this image

Other?

Creator

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question doesn't this image violate the Bank's stated rule about a digital reproduction being no greater than 72 dpi? Pine^talk 09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is no such a requirement in NBB's terms of use. They just say that the dimensions must be either smaller than two thirds or greater than one and a half times those of the original note. I've corrected the license's text. Brandmeister t 13:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• The license says for one type of allowable exception that the signatures must not be reproduced, but this image has them. For the other type of exception, "the reproduction must be in black and white or monochromatic". I don't see how this can meet either exception. Pine^talk 09:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding signatures, here case a of the terms applies, I think, not b. Both images are essentially monochromatic - generally, there are tones of blue and pink. Brandmeister t 16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I'm not still convinced that this meets the terms of the license. Pine^talk 06:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'd like to see some of the obvious marks in the white section cloned out. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support after I cloned out the marks on the white section. I tried uploading it as a separate file, but for some reason it didn't work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tomer T (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not enough support. Worth re-nominating at some point. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan

Amitabh Bachchan – , 2009 portrait by Studio Harcourt

Reason

This image provides a good visual impression of the person being discussed and described as influential actor, and is in high resolution.

Articles in which this image appears

Amitabh Bachchan

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Studio Harcourt

• Support as nominator --Bineet Ojha (talk) |BINEET| 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment We typically require pictures to be at least 1000px in the larger dimension. This one is a bit small. See WP:WIAFP for our criteria. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Also, for contemporary figures, it's generally better to have colour images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Small, seems a hair fuzzy even at this small size, no reason for B&W. Clegs (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really nice photo, but too small, and I'd prefer to see it in colour. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting and a great example of a Harcourt portrait. That said, there's zero "wow" to this and the lighting is a bit distracting. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

IPs must log in to have their votes counted. Thanks. Clegs (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus flower

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 15:28:53 (UTC)

Original – Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, (syn. Hemerocallis flava, Lemon Day-lily, Yellow Day-lily) is a plant of the genus Hemerocallis. It is found across China, in Europe in N.E. Italy and Slovenia and is one of the first daylilies used for breeding.

Reason

Nice healthy specimen that I found on a trip to Gran Sabana, with nice colors. The picture is imo pretty detailed with high encyclopaedic value.

Articles in which this image appears

Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Paolo Costa

• Support as nominator --Paolo Costa 15:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Pretty cool. Its more impressive then other pictures in the article. Dusty777 (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose nice pic of the flower, but what about the rest of the plant? Pine^talk 09:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry I did not understand your question. You wanted the whole plant to be shown? Because the subject here was the flower... Or is it because you see the rest of the plant in the background and don't like it? --Paolo Costa 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • More the first. I like the image. I believe that there's been some disagreement here on FPC about how much of a plant needs to be shown for the EV to be adequate. After reading JJ Harrison's comment below, I'll change my vote to weak support. Pine^talk 10:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support It is a good shot of the flower - something important for identification I'm told. I haven't thought of a way to take whole plant shots and pass FPC, however if possible one should take both a detail shot and a wide shot of any particular specimen. Weak because it is a little noisy and soft. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per JJH. Clegs (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per JJ --Guerillero | My Talk 17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Illustrates the flower well. O.J. (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Great Hall - Parliament of Australia.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:47:25 (UTC)

Original – Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia

Reason

Beyond the chambers, this room is probably the most important internal feature of parliament house. Central is the tapestry, an enlarged version of Arthur Boyd's painting. Important features in the tapestry are the Sulfur-crested Cockatoo and Halley's Comet (annotated on commons).

Articles in which this image appears

Parliament House, Canberra, Arthur Boyd

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• This page may help to flesh out some EV (captions, image page, articles...). --jjron (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Was having a hard time figuring out how to reference the size of the room and tapestry, then I saw the piano in the lower right hand corner. Wow. That's a really big room. Clegs (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Askalan (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question The reflections from the floor make it difficult for me to figure out what's happening at the doors. Is that a table in front of the doors? Maybe a more explanatory caption would help. Pine^talk 10:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Parliament_House,_Canberra#Layout may help. Behind the doors is, IIRC, and to paraphrase, 'the Members' Hall, an area restricted to security-classified occupants of the building, and linking onto the Ministerial Wing, housing the office suites of the Prime Minister and government Ministers'. Therefore it's largely an extra minor security measure I'd think; the public can wander around the Great Hall, but that is a pretty clear indication that it's a no-go zone beyond there. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, can you address this in the caption? Noting the scale in the caption would help also, per Elekhh's comment below. Pine^talk 08:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support nice quality but agree that the scale is a bit confusing. The scale becomes more apparent when filled with people. It could be improved if the caption would indicate the dimensions of the room (the tapestry in the back is 20x9m) and that the view is from the upper level. --ELEKHH^T 21:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support: Admittedly a huge room and a good shot. However, I agree with Elekhh that the scale is easier to see from a higher angle. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, the piano should be good enough. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support Per above comments. Dusty777 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I expanded article captions, but I can't find any dimensions of the room itself. The tapestry and piano give a sense of scale though. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Great Hall - Parliament of Australia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Long-tailed Finch

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:41:29 (UTC)

Original – Long-tailed Finch (Poephila acuticauda), Canberra, Australia

Reason

High quality that meets criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

Long-tailed Finch

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, regretful. The bird isn't entirely in focus, I wish it were better. Brandmeister t 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brandmeister. I think the heavy DOF is a bit distracting too, it's not really readable (as grass, etc), it's just a porridgy blur.126.109.231.71 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

IPs must log in to have their vote counted. Thanks. Clegs (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support The tail being OOF isn't a huge issue for me; I love the colors. The bokeh, rather than being a "porridgy blur" is very well done and what makes the picture.
• Oppose per the IP - DOF is so narrow as to be distracting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - When the bird is named for its tail, it should be in focus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Crisco 1492 Pine^talk 10:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Floury Baker cicada

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 09:27:45 (UTC)

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

Reason

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

Articles in which this image appears

Abricta curvicosta

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very well executed. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Good image. Sharp enough when viewed at a reasonable size. --jjron (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Question. Just had a quick read through the article and note that it says "Adult floury bakers always perch facing downwards". OK, so in this image the cicada is clearly not facing downwards - is this an aberration, not an adult, or has the photo been flipped? Just wondering how this impacts EV. --jjron (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Or has somebody make a fake edit? Clegs (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Good spot. I don't have a good answer to this except to say it just was. In fact, after getting a few good shots, I read the wiki article, and went back to the cicada to turn it face downward, but it very deliberately spun back around. There's definitely no photo manipulation (you can tell from the direction the "offshoot" bumps on the stem are pointing). It's clearly also an adult. So... ? --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I thought the same thing about the stem; it clearly looked to be facing the right way. Now it's hard to tell if that sentence in the article is actually referenced, as the nearest ref is at the end of the para, and unfortunately it's to a book so we can't check it easily. Hmmm, could be an error perhaps... --jjron (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So, this page confirms the downwards facing thing, but it does just look to be more like a personal blog site than anything scientific; so keep looking. --jjron (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The other question I guess is how certain are you of the species ID? --jjron (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Take a look at the Flickr pics. Some face up, some face down. The ID also seems consistent with these and the brisbane-insect pics. Maybe it's not-very-adult because it has so much "flour"? (If someone wants to redo the ID, back view is the same individual.) --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
          • How was it ID'd in the first place? Do you think it is worth talking to an entomologist? JJ Harrison (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
            • This is a very common species in Sydney. I was taught the common name of this and about six others as a kid. They all look very different. This UQ site is confirmation in my books: the wing venation matches, as does the overall appearance. The most related genus is out of range in Sydney, has quite a different appearance, and is supposed to sit upside-down too. Note they say "normally sit upside-down" (my emphasis). --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've edited the article to reflect the "normally" used by this source. --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good shot. Support, unless jjron's concern proves to be true. Clegs (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Nice - but as per Clegs, my support is conditional on the downwards facing thing not being an absolute characteristic --Fir0002 12:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerns adequately addressed? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced we've got solid refs either way. The source 99of9 has used says "Representatives of both genera share the unusual habit of sitting upside down on trees" at the top of the page, then "Adults normally sit upside down..." further down the page, which is a bit vague and semi-contradictory. Would like to get a solid ref that confirmed the 'not always' bit, or conversely an expert confirmation of the species (in which case we'd have the proof of the pudding ...). Don't guess anyone's got access to Moulds, M. S. (1990). Australian Cicadas. New South Wales University Press, Kensington as referenced by the above site, to see what that source actually says? On the other hand, don't want to hold this up indefinitely, although there's other conditional votes. --jjron (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either. It is entirely plausible that the specimen was a one-off mutant, as it seems no second specimen could be found to confirm the observation. Any claim that we could make about it would amount to original research unless backed up with a good source. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me point you to some specific photos to show that it's not a one off mutant: [5] [6] (yes, that is OR, but hopefully convincing to stop talking about mutants). Regarding encyclopedic material, please note that my edit to the page was not OR, it was sourced "normally sit upside-down". I don't think this source is self-contradictory, because it is note-worthy that other cicadas don't normally sit upside-down, so indeed "these genera share an unusual habit of sitting upside-down" (even if only much of the time). --99of9 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since you lot are so suspicious, I've now got Moulds sitting in front of me. The photographs (plate 5-1 and plate 15-4a) obviously show that this is the correct species. In the species description (pp 119-120), the behaviour section reads "Adults tend to be solitary. Like other Abricta species they normally sit on limbs facing downwards. Their flight is rapid and agile." On the genus description (p 118) it says "Unlike most other cicadas, adults always face downwards when at rest." So it seems that Moulds himself was the source of the contradiction. --99of9 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm satisfied. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Me to. Put 'er up. Clegs (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Floury Baker cicada side.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Endeavour STS-113

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 17:43:58 (UTC)

Original – Backdropped by a blanket of clouds, Space Shuttle Endeavour approaches the International Space Station during STS-113. Endeavour docked to the station at 21:59 P.M. (UTC) on November 25, 2002. The Port One (P1) truss segment, which was later to be attached to the station, can be seen in Endeavour's cargo bay.

Alt-1 Contrast slightly increased.

Reason

Seems like an educational picture, good EV, excellent quality, meets criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

STS-113, Space Shuttle Program.

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Space/Getting there

Creator

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Image seems a bit faint, and caption is too wordy. —Eustress ^talk 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a little on how the picture is "faint"? Dusty777 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking he means the contrast should be higher. I kind of agree with him, if that's the case. Clegs (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded an alternate version with increased contrast (I can't guarantee that it is the BEST edit, as I lack the proper programs.) Problem fixed? Dusty777 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that took care of the contrast issue. Clegs (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see how this has particularly strong EV compared to the many other Space Shuttle photos, and this one has some blown highlights and a little blur at full size. Pine^talk 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the blown highlights and blur. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Optical mouse

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 04:59:04 (UTC)

Original – A wireless mouse made for notebooks by Microsoft

Reason

High resolution, good EV (shows both the mouse and receiver).

Articles in which this image appears

Optical mouse (lead image), Mouse (computing)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The only issue for me is the "Microsoft". Seeing the manufacturer's name stamped on it is not an issue when it's a photo of an X-Box or a Nintendo gun controller, but on a mouse that is made by many different companies it is. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Admittedly it would be nice to have something like that, but it seems most manufacturers put their names in big letters on the product. Just looking at my workstation here, the laptop has both Acer and AspireONE on it (with a Microsoft sticker), the mouse has Tecgo on it, and the external harddrive has Trekstor in 4-centimetre (1.6 in) tall letters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Microsoft name on the products doesn't bother me. Almost every manufacturer has its name on its products.--Nanoman657 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Not a comment on photo quality, but this is a poor lead image for optical mouse, as it shows nothing of how an optical mouse operates. Without the caption, one would not be able to tell it was an optical mouse. Compare this image to File:Mouse mechanism diagram.svg - hahnchen 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like nobody has made a diagram for an optical mouse yet. Of the images in the article, personally I think this is the best. As for the lede image being a diagram, I think what they have in Mouse (computing) is better: the diagram is not put in the lede, but in a section on how it works. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Does anyone else think this is upside down? --jjron (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• For EV, I prefer it like this as it emphasizes the buttons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Meh; it makes the writing upside down, and very few people use a mouse this way up, so IMO it detracts from EV. --jjron (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• USB optical mouse without logo 1 2 (ignore the watermark on the picture). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support good quality image for its article, although not particularly interesting aesthetically. Pine^talk 10:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I have no issue with the M$ logo on the mouse. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see a mouse, yes. But an optical??? This image need to show us (also) the bottom side of the mouse. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the EV. Dusty777 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a good picture but I agree with comments that it is the wrong way round (I want to twist my hand round to hold it) and that it doesn't illustrate an optical mouse (though it is fine for a wireless mouse). --Colin°^Talk 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Bananagrams

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 04:46:38 (UTC)

Original – A Bananagrams case and tiles. The case is made of fabric and shaped like a banana. It contains 144 cream-coloured letter tiles which are used to play the game, which is similar to Scrabble.

Reason

High resolution and EV. Attractive image that helps readers better understand the game's presentation.

Articles in which this image appears

Bananagrams

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support; never played it or heard of it, but this looks like a solid illustration. Some may be critical of the cream tiles on the white background, but other backgrounds would have created problems with other parts of the image, or been distracting. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support; really a lovely photograph.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You need to sign in to vote. Anonymous votes are generally disregarded. O.J. (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 'Generally disregard' it if it pleases you.126.109.231.71 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, so in practical terms "always disregarded" if you'd prefer. Opinions may be considered (which is the 'generally bit'), but in terms of "!vote counting" they're not included. Not an argument; just the way it's done. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - image is overexposed... Nikthestoned 09:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• No it's not. When you take a picture of a bright yellow object with a bunch of small light cream objects on a white background, the histogram will necessarily be to the right. But if you were to actually look at the bananas and tiles, you will see there's not even blown highlighting. The exposure is perfect. Clegs (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't just look at the histogram but also checked out some of the colour values and found many of the reds to be at or very close to 255; the green as well, for that matter. Nikthestoned 11:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous. If the exposure looks great to the naked eye (which it does), what does it matter if some of the reds are or are not close to 255?? The exposure is without a doubt perfect. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seemed overly light, so I checked the various histograms; I don't really feel that's ridiculous. Nikthestoned 09:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Well done technically, and a very fun subject. Clegs (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Oppose Needs a better caption. It's not informative enough. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? It's very informative as it appears in the article. The caption sufficiently explains what we're seeing.126.109.231.71 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Either way, caption expanded on here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Crisco. IP, if this picture is going to appear on the main page of Wikipedia, it needs an informative caption, so that whoever sees the picture, can get a slight knowledge of what they are looking at, without having to read through the whole article. Dusty777 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Except the captions for the main page are generally written by HowCheng from the article. The captions here are just for voters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, caption issue on this page is oversold sometimes. It's more the caption, or rather description (and in fact the whole summary section), on the image page that we should be worried about, as that stays with image wherever it's put and that's what should be providing the full EV for wherever the image goes. The in-article captions can and do change without warning, but the image should link into the article content, which of course can also change before the image ever makes it to the mainpage. I do note the image page here is less informative than this caption. --jjron (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not anymore. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Phew. Well I sort of made that long-winded point then. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment/leaning weak oppose I think it would make more sense to have the letters in crossword form to show how the game is actually played. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's purpose is to illustrate the game supplies, and it does this perfectly well (although it would be nicer if the 'D' wasn't in the bag shadow). In response to Calliopejen, I would point out that the beginning of the game does involve having your letters spread willy-nilly in front of you :P Fallingmasonry (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Photographing white on white is hard and this does it well. I don't think the bag is over-exposed but is very brightly lit. The items have been arranged with care to show the logo and the tiles in and out of the bag. --Colin°^Talk 21:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Colin. Clegs (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Bananagrams-game.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• 7 S, 1.5 O Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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