Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

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

Promoting an image

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

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

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

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

Delisting an image

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

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

How to comment for Delist Images

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

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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


To see recent changes, purge the page cache.


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
Peter Paul Rubens - The Fall of Phaeton (National Gallery of Art).jpg The Fall of Phaeton
Fumigènes dans une manifestation parisienne (2008.11.13)-Romanceor.jpg Smoke grenade
VST images the Lagoon Nebula.jpg Lagoon Nebula 3...Try try but don't cry ‎


Current nominations[edit]

Itsukushima Shrine[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 17:47:14 (UTC)

Original – The torii gate at Itsukushima Shrine on the island of Itsukushima (popularly known as Miyajima) in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan
Reason
High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears
Itsukushima Shrine, Itsukushima
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
JordyMeow
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As at Commons I am completely unconvinced the colours are correct. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Enrique Pena Nieto[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 01:32:57 (UTC)

Original – Enrique Pena Nieto, 57th President of Mexico
Reason
high ev as lead image, very high quality, one of the best presidential portraits we have so far
Articles in which this image appears
Enrique Peña Nieto, President of Mexico, etc.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
PresidenciaMX 2012-2018
  • Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - This is supposed to be a photograph, but it's been through some wonky Photoshop filter, leaving it nothing at full size but blots. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The oil painting texture is goofy. Unless of course this is indeed an oil painting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's surely not actually a painting. The texture looks totally digital, complete with exaggerated microcontrast (check the shirt collar). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The description page also notes that this is a photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Terrible quality at full size. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Official portrait. ZZZzzzz. Sca (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Point Montara Light[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 11:03:05 (UTC)

OriginalPoint Montara Light, San Mateo County, California
Reason
Good quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Point Montara Light
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Frank Schulenburg
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — I'm a sucker for lighthouse shots, but I'd like this one better if the headland weren't directly behind the house. Sca (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The right side of the image is basically a wasteland of dullness. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor exposure.--Theamazo (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Arseniy Yatsenyuk[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 05:55:40 (UTC)

Original – Arseniy Yatsenyuk, 15th Prime Minister of Ukraine
Reason
High ev as lead image,high quality,Very good portrait
Articles in which this image appears
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, List of chairmen of the Verkhovna Rada,Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yatsenyuk Government
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Ybilyk
  • Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — No political bias here, but who knows what Mr. Yatsenyuk's status may be at such time as this shot would appear as a FP? Sca (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Looks dark, perhaps should be slightly lightened. Brandmeistertalk 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    The image was brightened and cleaned by the graphics lab. Spongie555 (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel like this has a bit too much contrast. Probably deliberate; to make him a beacon of light in the darkness of turbulent times, or to show him as a powerful figure standing above the rest. Technically quite nice, but the contrast is still a bit too high. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose too dark, poor exposure.--Theamazo (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Monument to the women of World War II (UK)[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2014 at 18:32:17 (UTC)

Original – Located on Whitehall in London, this large bronze sculpture pays tribute to the women of World War II. Sculpted by John W. Mills, the work is 22 feet (6.7 m) high, 16 feet (4.9 m) long, and 6 feet (1.8 m) wide. It was unveiled on 9 July 2005 by Queen Elizabeth II
Reason
High quality, high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Monument to the Women of World War II
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator
Godot13
  • Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Not subject to 7-day rule as the image is a quality upgrade of a very similar image.
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hafspajen (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - Is it possible to get this at a different time of day when there are not so many sharp shadows? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the delay, just got back from London. I suppose it is possible, but it seemed like there was only 2-3 hours with the sun shining on the face of the sculpture before it went overhead and then back-lit the object. The building in the current image was (IMHO) a better choice than the shooting the other direction. That being said, I do understand your concern...-Godot13 (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Support, although a D&R if we get a better shot may be warranted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many shadows on a dark subject make it difficult to see.--Theamazo (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Lagoon Nebula[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 11:51:14 (UTC)

Original – The VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile has captured this richly detailed new image of the Lagoon Nebula.
Reason
The image never received an oppose !vote in its two nominations. But this time it requires 5 supports. The image is of high quality and perfect resolution for any astro picture.
Articles in which this image appears
Lagoon Nebula and Astrophysical plasma
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator
ESO/VPHAS+ team
Nominators
The Herald and ArionEstar




A Polish Nobleman[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 10:20:55 (UTC)

OriginalA Polish Nobleman was painted in 1637 by Rembrandt. The identity of the subject remains unknown, but it is possibly a Polish or Russian nobleman.
Rebrandt, 1655
Reason
High quality photograph of a painting which is prominently featured in two good articles.
Articles in which this image appears
A Polish Nobleman, Rembrandt
FP category for this image
Artwork
Creator
Rembrandt (painter)
National Gallery of Art (photographer)
Botaurus (uploader)
  • Support as nominator --Editør (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine to me. Hafspajen (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC) (man, is the article Rembrand a Good article? Never seen such crappy gallery - is anyone interested to fix it? )
  • Support - Notable painting by notable artist. High resolution, high quality scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Who can oppose Rembrandt? An interesting visage and period portrayal. The subject does look rather like Rembrandt himself (below right). Sca (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • smile Indeed he is. It was the first thing I thought... It could be one of those selfportrats. (with a fake moustache.. .)Hafspajen (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be the speculation. The subject doesn't look very Polish to me. And get a load of that hat! Sca (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
An illegitimate brother perhapssmile?Hafspajen (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)



Burchell's zebra[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 09:00:54 (UTC)

Original – Burchell's zebra
Reason
Good quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears
Burchell's zebra
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Yathin S Krishnappa
  • Support as nominator --Bellus Delphina talk 09:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: the background seems to have an unnatural blur. – Editør (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — For some reason the zebra looks like a model or plastic toy to me. I'm not saying it is — just that it seems to have that appearance. Sca (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Mammy's Cupboard 2[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 15:33:29 (UTC)

OriginalMammy's Cupboard, a roadside restaurant built in the shape of a mammy archetype, located on US Highway 61 south of Natchez, Mississippi.
Reason
High quality and resolution, notable photographer, freest possible license
Articles in which this image appears
Mammy's Cupboard, Mammy archetype
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Carol M. Highsmith
  • Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support One of the uglier gimmick architectures, but if we have an article on it, and it's a very good depiction of that article's subject - which it is - I think the EV is very high. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support as before. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)




Sari temple 2[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 15:28:30 (UTC)

OriginalSari temple is an 8th-century Buddhist temple located at Dusun Bendan, Tirtomartani village, Kalasan, Sleman Regency.
Reason
A high quality, clear stitch of a fairly large temple (the largest one I've nominated so far).
Articles in which this image appears
Sari temple, Candi of Indonesia, Kewu Plain
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Chris Woodrich
  • Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as before Hafspajen (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as before Mattximus (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Minor flaws at full resolution (there's some artefacting in the plants to the far left, for example), but that resolution is so massive that they're insignificant. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. And don't mention the plants!. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Plants I can handle... big fat leaves, on the other hand... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)




Howard Thurston[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 11:53:32 (UTC)

OriginalHoward Thurston, American magician noted for his work with card tricks, as shown in a 1914 poster.
Reason
A high-quality scan of a notable magician, by one of my two favourite American lithographers (The other being L. Prang). Was suggested to me by Armbrust as a subject, I found a somewhat better scan, and, so...
Articles in which this image appears
Howard Thurston
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Strobridge Litho. Co., restored by Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Good poster, useful for the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting, with those red imps. Brandmeistertalk 17:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Can't find a flaw, and EV is there. Mattximus (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, love it. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)




Saffron harvesting in north east of Iran[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 04:45:54 (UTC)

Reason
Full EV and high quality
Articles in which this image appears
Saffron, Torbat-e Heydarieh, and Crocus sativus
FP category for this image
Creator
User:Safa.daneshvar
  • Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - Why is the DOF so shallow? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not good at photographing. I just nominated the picture. If anybody can answer Crisco's question, please type it.Alborzagros (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think DOF is a very good choice, focusing the viewer on the action in the centre. The image caption could be much better though, explaining why is it cultivated/harvested and why do people wear masks. --ELEKHHT 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The OOF at the bottom is quite distracting. As such, I agree with Adam: there should be a bit cropped off the bottom. I can see how the DOF got so shallow... f3.2 at 200 mm will do that. I'd have gone with f4.5 or 5.6 at 200mm, with an ISO of 200 or so, which would have more of the foreground and background in focus (and the noise would have been manageable). This appears to have already been cropped, or downsampled (most likely the latter, considering how rounded the numbers are), as the camera has an 8.25 megapixel maximum output. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's under the normal minimum resolution, and should probably have about 50-100 pixels cropped out of the bottom, which would put it more under. I'd probably be willing to waive the resolution on this one, as long as it's not downsampled (As the harvesting tends to happen in parts of the world without easy access to high-resolution cameras), but do want to crop it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per evidence that this has been unnecessarily downsampled and (essentially) per Saffron Blaze's comment at the Commons FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)




Happy family[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2014 at 19:36:04 (UTC)

Original – Female Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) and her 12 ducklings at Farmoor Reservoir, Oxfordshire
Reason
All the little ducklings are looking in the same direction
Articles in which this image appears
Mallard
FP category for this image
Animals
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominator --Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose very cute, but weak composition, with 3/4 of the image occupied by water and unfortunate overlay of parent duck and chick in the background. Also, image was just added to the article now, contravening criteria #5 --ELEKHHT 12:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — That's a lotta ducklings, but it's a clichéed composition. Sorry. Sca (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose shows the back of the ducks.--Theamazo (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Groundhog[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2014 at 10:50:53 (UTC)

OriginalGroundhog on Laval University campus, Quebec, Canada
Reason
Good position and composition, important parts are sharp, high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Groundhog
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Cephas
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — A 9 on the Cute Scale. (And it's not a bird!) Sca (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — As per 9 on the Cute Scale. Hafspajen (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)(what if it is not a bird? are birds overrepresented on FPC? ) OK;- Diliff smileHafspajen (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. If I had to be critical, I'd say that the body shape is obscured and it's a little tightly cropped, but it's otherwise a quality capture. And birds are probably slightly overrepresented, but mainly because they're easier to photograph (well, some of them) and there is a lot of diversity and local availability of bird species. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if only to keep complaints about birds to a minimum. (Oh, and the image is quite well done as well). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)




Smoke grenade[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 11:08:54 (UTC)

OriginalSmoke grenades used at demonstrations in Paris, 2008
Reason
Excellent action shot with high EV, well depicting the topic.
Articles in which this image appears
Smoke grenade
FP category for this image
Culture and lifestyle
Creator
Roman Bonnefoy
  • Support as nominator --ELEKHHT 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - Is the darkness an effect of the smoke grenade, or an effect of this being shot at 1/1,250? This looks (maybe) a wee underexposed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's taken in winter late afternoon with high ISO. Various levels of smoke are distinguishable. --ELEKHHT 11:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm not doubting that it would be quite dark. However, this doesn't look like a 5 p.m. shot in November. This looks to be 6:30-ish. I'll link to a small, quick edit I made, adjusting the exposure just slightly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dropbox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)#
  • With due respect Crisco, how would you know what 5pm in Paris in November looks like unless you live there (or somewhere similar)? ;-) A quick google search reveals what I suspected: It was taken a few minutes after sunset, so with the addition of the thick smoke, it's completely understandable that it's dark. By 6:30pm, it would be completely dark, with only street lighting. In any case, I don't actually see much of a difference between your edit and the original. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's odd; in Lightroom it looked a bit lighter (exposure +0.2)... or did the export not work correctly? Anyways, although technically this has a little bit of blurring, I'd expect that to be (at least in part) due to the smoke. As such, I'd like to Support this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2014(UTC)
  • Striking support per Diliff's concerns below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support it is good to have pictures about controversial topics too. Hafspajen (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support good illustrative value. Tomer T (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It does occur to me that perhaps all the smoke is due to the flares, and not an actual smoke grenade. In which case, it would not be representative in illustrating the article. The image caption, translated from French, is: "Smoke in a demonstration in Paris". It does not imply where the smoke has come from, and the only visible source of smoke in the image is definitely the flares. If I'm missing something here, I'm happy to reconsider. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, this one has a flare - although I am not a Smoke grenade expert, but it looks like those flares spit out quite a lot of smoke. Hafspajen (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree, both flares and smoke grenades spit out flames and smoke. But as far as I know, smoke grenades aren't meant to be held as they burn, whereas flares are. What we see in the image are definitely flares. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually "fumigène" as a noun means 'smoke making device'. Since those in the image are used by demonstrators, they are likely self-made and hence might work differently. It is clear from the image that the purpose of the devices is making smoke, and the image illustrates that effect, which is where the EV of the image lies. --ELEKHHT 01:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Except the connotations of smoke grenade and fumigène are slightly different. This may illustrate fumigène well... but it may not illustrate smoke grenade. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Depends on the scope of the article. The English wikipedia does not have currently a generic article on smoke making devices, and en:smoke grenade is the most extensive article on the subject, also linking to fr:fumigène. Note that similarly the German wiki article de:Rauchgranate includes in its scope all other similar smoke making devices (regardless of form), although it links back to en:Smoke bomb. As I am not expert on the subject I am not going to sort this out, but the issue seems to me to be with the article, not the image. --ELEKHHT 01:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, the problem is not with the image, or the image caption. It's with the EV as it relates to the article it supposedly illustrates. A grenade is by definition designed to be thrown, not held. There is a clear difference in design and purpose between a smoke grenade (intended to be thrown and to generate smoke, with light as an incidental by-product) and a the type of flare in the image (intended to be held and to generate light, with smoke as an incidental by-product). The flare article calls them fusees. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Terminology aside, I don't see much point in running an 'action' shot of an event that took place almost six years ago, given that the pic. isn't going to illustrate an entry on said event anyway. Sca (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The event itself is not the point though. If the image illustrated a smoke grenade effectively, it wouldn't matter if it was at an event 6 years ago or 40 years ago. They haven't changed substantially. It's more than just terminology though, flares and smoke grenades have very different functions, potentially very different chemistry, and very different results. There are separate articles for each on the English Wikipedia. The problem is that in the German and French Wikipedia (where the image originated), the two subjects are combined in a 'smoke making device' article, which might suit their needs, but not ours IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this more or less random (news-type) pic. has much EV, either. If we're going to illustrate Smoke grenade, we should show an actual smoke grenade burning & smoking away. Those look more like road flares to me. Sca (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If it illustrated flare, it would have EV as it would show how a flare could be used in practice. Not just the device itself. So I disagree with you there, but in any case, it doesn't matter, because it's not illustrating the right article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Although I think road flares usually smoke less and are brighter, no?. Sca (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mixed up with smoke from flares, can also not see any smoke grenade.--Theamazo (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




The Fall of Phaeton[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 07:24:21 (UTC)

OriginalThe Fall of Phaeton by Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1604/1605. The painting depicts the myth at the height of its action, with the thunderbolts hurled by Zeus to the right while the butterfly winged female figures, representing the hours and seasons, react in terror.
Reason
Straight from the National Gallery of Art and perhaps one of Rubens' gems.
Articles in which this image appears
The Fall of Phaeton (Rubens)
FP category for this image
Paintings
Creator
Peter Paul Rubens
  • (Question about size): I wonder tought about the dimensions... 98.4 × 131.2 cm .. the size of a coffee table? - surely it is much bigger)... OK, I got that, it is a reproduction, a poster. Well, still it is weird to say 98.4 × 131.2 cm ...38.7 × 51.7 inch -I do think that the original is probably several metres. This [1] said, painting in the large scale. The Fall of Phaeton above is one example of Ruben’s masterful composition on a large scale... 98.4 × 131.2 cm (38.7 × 51.7 in) - is not much of a large scale. Hafspajen (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • All of the sources give 98.4 * 131.2 (ex). I don't think Empty Easel is a site to rely on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • How weird. That is a very little space to put all this grandious, flamboyant, splashy, magnificent work on. Great picture. Hafspajen (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, the explanation: an early work!!! [2]. Thereof the moderate size. His later paintings are much bigger. (Sure when counting he was 27 years when he painted it) Hafspajen (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Gorgeous work by an old master, well-reproduced. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)




Chital[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 00:57:54 (UTC)

Original – A chital (Axis axis) stag attempting to browse on a misty morning in Nagarhole National Park
Reason
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images.
Articles in which this image appears
Browsing (herbivory); Chital; Nagarhole National Park
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Yathin S Krishnappa
  • Support as nominator --Hafspajen (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - High technical quality, good representation of a common herbivore behaviour (as well as the species' feeding habits). Very encyclopedic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support had it on my potential FPC list for a while. --ELEKHHT 11:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Jee 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Very good! I like it how the animals in the back blend in with the background, thus also showing the camouflage effect of their skin/fur. --Ebertakis (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)




Set: Urania's Mirror, Constellations of the Ecliptic[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2014 at 23:13:52 (UTC)

Reason
Excluding Aquarius, Pisces, and Capricornus - which are all FPs already - these are the remaining constellations of the ecliptic, including Ophiuchus (under its archaic synonym, Serpentarius). This is probably the penultimate nomination from Urania's Mirror - hopefully soon to be a Featured Article! Do note two of these (Cancer, Leo) were scanned later by the LoC, at higher resolution, so may look a little different.
Articles in which this image appears
Urania's Mirror, specific usages largely as linked.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator
Sidney Hall and Richard Rouse Bloxam, after Alexander Jamieson, restoration by Adam Cuerden.


  • Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as with previous nominations. Very good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as with all the other plates. --CyberXRef 22:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support nice work, lovely pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Featured set opportunity? HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)o
Probably better keeping them individual: It will take a long time to get the last two cards from Urania's mirror (I found somewhat decent fill-ins in the meantime.) The LOC didn't scan two of them, you see, so I basically have to beg them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)





Nominations — to be closed[edit]

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

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

Closing procedure[edit]

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

When promoted, perform the following:

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


Delist closing procedure[edit]

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

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

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

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

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

If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:

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



Recently closed nominations[edit]

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

Kepler186f[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 13:58:24 (UTC)

OriginalKepler-186f is an exoplanet orbiting the red dwarf Kepler-186. It is the first planet with a radius similar to Earth's to be discovered in the habitable zone of another star.
Reason
High quality + higher resolution+ perfect EV = Deserving candidate, viz. This one
Articles in which this image appears
Kepler-186f
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator
NASA Ames/SETI Institute/JPL-Caltech
  • Support as nominator --The herald 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is an artist's concept, and not an actual photograph. Not sure if consensus is for promoting these. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't see that as a problem..The herald 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We can't know that this is how it really looks. --Janke | Talk 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdraw and Speedy close--The herald 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --The herald 17:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)



Nascar Pit Road[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2014 at 19:02:17 (UTC)

Original – Nascar Pit Road
Reason
Photo of a Hot Pit during a NASCAR race
Articles in which this image appears
NASCAR rules and regulations - NASCAR - Sonoma Raceway
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other
Creator
WPPilot
  • Support as nominator --WPPilot 19:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Lacks car(s). Sca (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - This is a photo of pit road, not "cars on pit road". WPPilot talkWPPilot 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Lacks visual interest. Sca (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree, compositionally and encyclopaedically, it could benefit from car or cars to show what exactly happens in a pit road. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)



20140402 MCDAAG Jahlil Okafor dunk[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2014 at 17:15:02 (UTC)

OriginalJahlil Okafor flying toward a dunk in the 2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game
Edit 1 by User:Diliff. Brightened the image to bring out the whites and show tonal details better
Reason
This is a high quality action photography shot
Articles in which this image appears
Jahlil Okafor
2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game
2014–15 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team
FP category for this image
People
Creator
TonyTheTiger
  • Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks a little underexposed, I think. You may need some post-processing. Also concerned about the players' legs in the background. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by underexposed. What about this photo points toward that assessment? How do you post-process a correction?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The floors at BBall courts are usually very, very, shiny, owing to the amount of polish. Here it has a very matte look. That being said... I'm concerned by the noise in this image. His skin is not very smooth; looks like noise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I suppose noise stems from my use of a monopod rather than a tripod and the fact that I shot at 800 ISO/640 speed in manual mode. FWIW, auto settings for the action setting in this lighting were 1600 ISO/1250 speed when I tested the action setting on the mode dial. Given that I am working with a Rebel T4i, I can't do much better in terms of noise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I suppose from the angle the image was taken from, there wasn't any reflection. I also agree that it's slightly darker than is ideal. All the whites in the image are dull greys. But I'm more concerned that it's not a true 'action shot'. Obviously, he's actually dunking the ball, but the absence of any defence in the image makes it look a bit staged. A 'demonstration duck' if you will, and not taken during an actual game. I appreciate that it's somewhat of a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation to be in though. If there were a lot of other players in the shot, it would be opposed for messy composition! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
        • If you look at the history, you can see that I cropped out the other players in the shot.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Visually, I am not sure what you mean by the whites not being very white. When I look at the word McDonald's on his shirt, that looks about as white as I could have hoped for, IMO. However I see what you are saying in the image brightness histogram. The brightness histogram of the original shot is sort of bimodal with a low peak very close to the left and a higher peak two thirds of the way to the right. There is almost no content in the right quartile of the histogram. I am shocked to see no content in the right quartile of the image histogram. I thought the whites were white, but I see your point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Looking at the image brightness histograms of all the images that I have uploaded from this game, the only ones with white whites are the non-action ones shot in fully automode. File:20140402 MCDAAG Justin Jackson Jack Daly Award (2).JPG seems to have the best histogram in terms of having white whites without notable spikes going off the chart. File:20140402 MCDAAG MVPs (2).JPG is also decent. However these are at 500 and 400 speeds so they would have more blur in the action shots.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
          • P.S. even in the game-winning dunk (File:20140402 MCDAAG Jahlil Okafor game-winning dunk (2).JPG) by the same player, it does not look like anyone is trying to stop him. So having other players in the shot does not make it look like any more of an action shot in some senses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
            • OK, you've convinced me that it's just an unfortunate angle that makes it appear that he's completely uncontested. But as for the brightness, perhaps your monitor needs an adjustment because the whites on Jahlil's shirt are not particularly bright. I've made an image which shows the original next to an edit I quickly put together for comparison, and I think it improves on the exposure somewhat. I would say that perhaps the court appears slightly overexposed in the edit (I'm not sure what it looked like 'in person'), but the darker tones of the player's skin and shirt are more what I would expect to see. I suppose it's a tricky scene for the camera to meter. The court is bright and the player is dark. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Actually, looking through my files, some of the actions shots with the same settings have significant white whites presence in the histogram. I am going to spend time looking at more images. I like your processing of the whites however. Can you post that edit here for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Done. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • I don't know what to say about whether the court is overexposed or depicts the true appearance in the edit. This picture is now a 53.5% crop of a 200m zoom image. We are talking about what the court would look like if I had 20-25x zoom vision in comparison to my regular eyesight. I was not down on the court and don't know its true color.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • Not that it really matters what 'zoom level' it was taken at, but I think 20-25x is an exaggeration. You shot it at 200mm with a crop-sensor camera, meaning a full frame equivalent of 320mm. The human eye's focal length is apparently 22-24mm, but it's not a direct equivalent to a camera lens because the eye is really nothing like a camera lens/sensor, and you only really see clearly in the central 3-5% of your vision. It gets progressively worse the wider it goes. 50mm is considered to be roughly equivalent to the 'sharp' part of our vision though. So going with 50mm, 320mm is really only about 6x 'zoom'. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
                      • Then this is cropped so we are looking at about 12X right? Regardless, I don't know what a court should look like. Crisco 1492 seemed to know what the floor should look like.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
                        • We're getting a bit caught up in the details now, but different courts look different. They're usually all shiny and waxed though, but the colour and luminosity depends on the wood used to build it, I'd imagine. So unless Crisco has actually been to that particular court, I don't think he'd be any more accurate than you are. If you think it looks fine, let's go with that? In any case, I'm not sure it's going to be a featured picture... The image quality isn't quite there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
                          • I can't vouch for this exact court (my only experience with Chicago thusfar has been O'Hare, and that was a combined total of 6 hours), but I think Diliff's edit has the colors a bit more as one would expect a BBall court. That being said, the noise is still significant... once I'm done tweaking my new panorama of Sari Temple, I'll see what this looks like if we denoise it and downsample, see if it can be made featureable or not. Composition wise this is decent, although I think a more direct shot (i.e. from a lower row) might have more "oomph". But then, I'd expect one's mobility with a camera to be limited in such a setting, so I wouldn't think too much of that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
                            • Of course an event like this at the United Center is reserved seating. I had a ticket for section 319, which shares an entrance with section 318. In section 318, there is what appears to be a standing room area where I set up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
                              • I was playing with the image in Lightroom, and with Luminescence at 30 (maybe as high as 40) the image is considerably smoother. However, I don't think the loss of detail would be a good trade off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
                                • Well, the feedback on this image will greatly improve my photography. You have made me think more clearly about what all the graphs are on my camera. Now, that I have processed that they can tell me if my whites are really white, I will probably choose my settings a lot better. I think almost all the indoor basketball photography that I have done in the past two years has been underdeveloped now that the two of you have coached me to think about whether my images are presenting white whites. Sadly, the images in this set are among my best in terms of being adequately developed. Certainly, something is better than nothing. I am not going to be able to reduce the noise. In action photography as in life, you cannot have speed, quality and affordability. In choosing the Rebel T4i, I have surrendered quality.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
                                  • What software are you using for processing? Camera Raw and Lightroom are paid software, but they both perform admirably (the "auto levels" is a bit too bright for my liking, but you can easily fix that with the software). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't really do much post-processing. I crop in either MS Paint or the Windows 8 Photo app. The Win8 app crops more quickly but is approximate. I might want to retain 3:2, but it might give me a 2401:1600 image instead of 2400:1600 image. Aside from cropping, I don't do much. There was a time when I used Hugin and GIMP fairly regularly, but that has been a few years. Not sure what you mean by "auto levels".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, that explains it; you may need something more powerful for such things as contrast, exposure, highlights, etc. As for the automatic feature: this gives a fairly good overview of Camera Raw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree with Crisco. You don't necessarily have to use expensive software, but I would recommend using something to ensure that your photo is the best it can be before submitting an image to FPC. Photos are rarely exposed perfectly straight out of camera. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • For non-expensive software (i.e. free), GIMP offers some possibilities. I don't use it as much as the software I've mentioned above (I mainly use it for circle cropping; GIMP allows one to resize the cut area much more easily than Photoshop), but it is fairly powerful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well, based on the above conversation, we've managed to improve the exposure issues slightly but I don't think it's quite FP material. Sports photography is inherently difficult, particularly without professional camera equipment. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how much either of you is into basketball photography in general, but I could use some feedback at Talk:2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game#Image_choices. It should take about 10 minutes. Just give me a number (generally 1-4) and a sig for each guy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)



Swans Reflecting Elephants[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2014 at 12:02:04 (UTC)

[[File:Swans reflecting elephants.jpg|thumb|right|100000x260px|Original – Swans Reflecting Elephants (1937) is a painting by the Spanish surrealist Salvador Dalí. This painting is from Dalí's Paranoiac-critical period.]]

Reason
Simpy a high quality image
Articles in which this image appears
Swans Reflecting Elephants
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Salvador Dalí
  • Support as nominator --The herald 12:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy close, non-free images shouldn't be high quality (especially not high resolution) and this file needs size reduction. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)




Heic 0609[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2014 at 13:45:11 (UTC)

Original – Image taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope provides a detailed look at the tattered remains of a supernova explosion known as Cassiopeia A (Cas A). It is the youngest known remnant from a supernova explosion in the Milky Way. The new Hubble image shows the complex and intricate structure of the star’s shattered fragments.
A false color image off Cassiopeia using observations from both the Hubble and Spitzer telescopes as well as the Chandra X-ray Observatory (cropped).
Reason
Fine image
Articles in which this image appears
Cassiopeia A
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator
NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage
  • Support either or both as nominator --The Herald 13:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)




Suspended nominations[edit]

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