Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Corinne (talk | contribs)
25,840 edits
→Current nominations: Adding nomination.
Line 32: Line 32:
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusc}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hypothetical Ancestral Mollusc}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Assignat}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Assignat}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Evening Air, by Henri-Edmond Cross}}
<!-- Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. -->
<!-- Place new nominations at the TOP of the group. -->
{{-}}
{{-}}

Revision as of 22:44, 21 September 2014

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
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-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. 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-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. 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, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. 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?

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.

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.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) 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 the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate.

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


Black-capped chickadee


Current nominations

Deception I - Jim the Penman (Emanuel Ninger)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2014 at 21:55:30 (UTC)

Original – Series 1880 $100 Legal Tender Note, attributed to Emanuel Ninger (National Museum of American History)
Genuine Series 1880 $100 Legal Tender Note. (For comparison purposes only, not part of the nomination.)
Reason
High quality image, high EV. Very high quality example of Ninger’s hand-drawn counterfeit banknotes. Possession of such “banknotes” is illegal, regardless of whether they are in circulation or not. Select U.S. federal agencies are exempt (including the Smithsonian).
Articles in which this image appears
Emanuel Ninger
FP category for this image
Currency (or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others)
Creator
Emanuel Ninger
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.
Image by Godot13.
Sorry, I should have mentioned- reverse is not shown because the note was mounted on card (there is nothing to see on the reverse).--Godot13 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Henri Frenay 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2014 at 12:44:29 (UTC)

Original – Henri Frenay, an important player in the French resistance during World War II.
Reason
There was a nomination of this a while ago, but I've looked up Frink, and he appears to be an American photographer working for the army at the time, so the issues from that nomination can safely be ignored. I think it's a fine restoration, probably as good as I could do, and thus certainly worth a nomination.
Articles in which this image appears
Henri Frenay
FP category for this image
Probably WP:Featured pictures/People/Military
Creator
Maurice Frink, restoration by Christoph Braun Please note: NOT one of my restorations for once, I'm just nominating.

Promoted File:Portrait of Henri Frenay, head and shoulders ppmsca.13371 edit.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Jean Cocteau

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2014 at 02:54:57 (UTC)

Original – French poet, novelist, dramatist, designer, playwright, artist and filmmaker Jean Cocteau (1889-1963).
Reason
Already a Valued Image at Commons, this picture of French jack of all trades Jean Cocteau has strong EV to its respected article and an overall fine looking image.
Articles in which this image appears
Jean Cocteau, 1953 Cannes Film Festival, 1954 Cannes Film Festival, List of Cannes Film Festival jury presidents
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Uploaded and restored by JLPC

Promoted File:Jean Cocteau b Meurisse 1923.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Alhambra from Mirador San Nicolás

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2014 at 22:19:56 (UTC)

Original – An evening panorama of the Alhambra as seen from Mirador de San Nicolás with the Sierra Nevada mountain range in the background. From left to right: Generalife, Pico del Veleta (mountain), Palacios Nazaríes, Palace of Charles V, Alcazaba.
Reason
An evening panorama of Alhambra taken from the classic viewpoint Mirador de San Nicolás with very good light. It shows the Alhambra in its entirety from the Generalife to the left to the Alcazaba at the right.
Articles in which this image appears
Alhambra, Granada, Spain
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator
Slaunger

Promoted File:Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



"It is far better to face the bullets than to be killed at home by a bomb."

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2014 at 02:48:36 (UTC)

Original – British recruitment poster showing a Zeppelin, and warning that you're probably going to die in your beds anyway encouraging people to join the army, as one could die at home as well.
Reason
A rather striking, albeit simple, recruitment poster from WWI. Such posters tended to be a little over the top. There are prettier ones, but this one is widely in use. Part of my work on Operation Great War Centennial.
Articles in which this image appears
In no particular order: Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, Civil defense, German strategic bombing during World War I, God Save the Queen, History of the United Kingdom during World War I, Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War, Zeppelin
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I
Creator
Publicity Department, Central Recruiting Depot. Restoration by Adam Cuerden.

Promoted File:It is far better to face the bullets.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Current issue of the rupiah

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 09:35:42 (UTC)

Current (2014) issue of the rupiah
Reason
High quality scans of all the current banknotes of the Rupiah (including the 1k, which doesn't seem to be in production anymore). Can't let Godot have a category all to himself now, can we?
Articles in which this image appears
Indonesian rupiah, Banknotes of the Rupiah
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Currency
Creator
Bank Indonesia, scanned by User:Crisco 1492
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --vibrant and very high quality images.--Godot13 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow, nice scan. Now with a high quality printer... Mattximus (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a bit troubled by the licensing. These images cannot be both CC and PD (which is what, for instance, the categories currently suggest), as there are elements of CC which are not compatible with the PD. If, in scanning the notes, you have done enough to be able to claim copyright (which I don't think you have under US law), then the image is CC; if you haven't, and your claim about the licensing of banknote designs is correct (I'm happy to defer to you) then it's PD. Perhaps you could explain the PD status of the design in the information template, before reserving the copyright tag for the "final" copyright status of the files. J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under US law, you are correct, as sweat of the brow is not recognized for claims of copyright. Under UK law, however, I am allowed to assert a CC license over the scans (similar to how Adam has asserted a CC license on his more involved restorations). Owing to the effort it took to prepare these scans (tracking down the notes [the 1k in particular was hard to get in decent shape, as those are getting sparse], cleaning off the dust and gunk, avoiding Photoshop issues), I've decided that I want to ask that reusers credit me for the scans. A bit further detail can be found at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. This dual licensing has passed VIC on Commons on several occasions so far, and we've never had issues with Adam's dual licensed scans. (For the PD-ness of the banknotes, the template includes links to the pertinent law)
      I have already separated the copyright templates for the banknote and on the scan with headers ("Scan" and "Banknote", respectively). I could add "Owing to the effort involved in scanning, in countries recognizing sweat of the brow the author releases this image under a (license tag). Otherwise, the author requests attribution if these images are reused". if you prefer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think CC BY-SA as Godot13 doing is OK; but source and author should be well described. Jee 16:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:1000 rupiah bill, 2000 series (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:2000 rupiah bill, 2009 series (2014 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:5000 rupiah bill, 2001 series (2009 date), processed, obverse and reverse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:10000 rupiah bill, 2010 revision (2014 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:20000 rupiah bill, 2011 revision (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:50000 rupiah bill, 2011 revision (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:100000 rupiah bill, 2011 revision (2013 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


State Arms of the Union (set)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2014 at 03:00:27 (UTC)

Reason
High quality, high EV (presented as a complete set). State Arms of the Union illustrated by Henry Mitchell[n 1] and published by Louis Prang in 1876. There are 45 Chromolithographed state and territorial coats of arms plus the title page. These images have been used to illustrate Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 (currently a Featured List Candidate) and also appear individually in 44 articles.
Original
U.S. State coats of arms illustrated in State Arms of the Union by Henry Mitchell and published by Louis Prang in 1876. There are 45 state and territorial arms plus the title page.
Articles in which these images appear
Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 (all), and one in each of the following: Seal of Alabama, Seal of Arkansas, Seal of California, Seal of Colorado, Seal of Connecticut, Dakota Territory, Seal of Delaware, Seal of the District of Columbia , Seal of Florida, Seal of Georgia, Idaho Territory, Seal of Illinois, Seal of Indiana, Seal of Iowa, Seal of Kansas, Seal of Kentucky, Seal of Louisiana, Seal of Maine, Seal of Maryland, Seal of Massachusetts, Seal of Michigan, Seal of Minnesota, Seal of Mississippi, Seal of Missouri, Montana Territory, Seal of Montana, Seal of Nebraska, Seal of Nevada, Seal of New Hampshire, Coat of arms of New Jersey, New Mexico Territory, Seal of New York, Seal of North Carolina, Seal of Oregon, Flag and coat of arms of Pennsylvania, Coat of arms of Rhode Island, Seal of South Carolina, Seal of Tennessee, Seal of Texas, Utah Territory, Coat of arms of Vermont, Flag and seal of Virginia, Seal of West Virginia, Seal of Wisconsin, and Wyoming Territory. Spanish Wikipedia (40), Hebrew Wikipedia (1)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
Creator
Mitchell, Henry (1876). The State Arms of the Union. Boston: L. Prang & Co.
Restoration by Godot13.
State Arms of the Union (1876)
  • U.S. Great Seal
    U.S. Great Seal
  • Alabama
    Alabama
  • Arkansas
    Arkansas
  • California
    California
  • Colorado
    Colorado
  • Connecticut
    Connecticut
  • Dakota Territory
    Dakota Territory
  • Delaware
    Delaware
  • District of Columbia
    District of Columbia
  • Florida
    Florida
  • Georgia
    Georgia
  • Idaho Territory
    Idaho Territory
  • Illinois
    Illinois
  • Indiana
    Indiana
  • Iowa
    Iowa
  • Kansas
    Kansas
  • Kentucky
    Kentucky
  • Louisiana
    Louisiana
  • Maine
    Maine
  • Maryland
    Maryland
  • Massachusetts
    Massachusetts
  • Michigan
    Michigan
  • Minnesota
    Minnesota
  • Mississippi
    Mississippi
  • Missouri
    Missouri
  • Montana Territory
    Montana Territory
  • Nebraska
    Nebraska
  • Nevada
    Nevada
  • New Hampshire
    New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
    New Jersey
  • New Mexico Territory
    New Mexico Territory
  • New York
    New York
  • North Carolina
    North Carolina
  • Ohio
    Ohio
  • Oregon
    Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
    Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
    South Carolina
  • Tennessee
    Tennessee
  • Texas
    Texas
  • Utah Territory
    Utah Territory
  • Vermont
    Vermont
  • Virginia
    Virginia
  • West Virginia
    West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
    Wisconsin
  • Wyoming Territory
    Wyoming Territory
  1. ^ Mitchell was an engraver for the BEP (40 years) and was commissioned to engrave several state coats of arms. These book illustrations are based on information provided to him by the states’ executive branch.
I'll do my best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if you have any reservation about completing in time, please let me know and I will put the nomination on hold for a day or two.--Godot13 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, it probably wouldn't hurt, at least until I can get a few [?] done, and know the exact scope and time sink. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know which ones you've identified and which you want to work on, and I will do the rest. I understand the desire to have everything in the best shape it can be, but I really would like to wrap this nomination up as you know there is limited time before the cup is over and your comment (without a 5th support) effectively puts the nomination in limbo.--Godot13 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not having heard back, and in a desire to both let this nomination run its course and not unduly burden you, I've started some of the fiber cleaning on several files. I uploaded a new version of New Mexico and will upload more later.--Godot13 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The following files have been tweaked per above: Title page, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (45). Changes are very slight. More to follow.--Godot13 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC) --Godot13 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please suspend this. This could take a bit. Have you updated the TIFFs as well, because I'm half-way through Arkansas, and there's a TON of stuff on the right wing (as seen looking at it). Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden-You do not read/respond to the messages left here. I have already done about 60% of them. I will finish them. No, I have not yet updated the TIFs, only the JPEGs.--Godot13 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you had said the TIFFs weren't updated before I downloaded them to check whether anything needed done and put a few hours in, presuming you had missed things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the miscommunication. I thought I was being clear here. I will make it up to you... You said something about playing cards a few days back, I may be able to help with that in a few weeks.--Godot13 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. Just had put today aside for this, then half-way through, saw you said you had done the one I was in the middle of, and finding a fair bit to fix on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adam TIFs are updated to most current version (list of completed files above). We will have better coordination in the future. If not for Cup, I would have no issue slowing it all down. Win or loose, I won't be competing again. But I do want to make every effort possible. When the rest of the files are completed (8-10 hours, perhaps optimistically) will I need to work on getting additional reviewers to view the images and/or leave comments?--Godot13 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't updated before this closes, you may assume my Support. As for the other reviews, what generally is done is to leave a message on all current reviewers' talk pages, telling them the nomination is updated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had planned to send a note to each reviewer as soon as the revisions were complete.--Godot13 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I still support this nomination; unfortunately we have a very slow, restricted (and meagre!) data allowance so I can't download all of them but the further work done that I've checked has enhanced these even more. With my sincere apologies to Armburst who will no doubt have to sort my indenting/formatting yet again ;-) SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:State Arms of the Union (title page, illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Alabama state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Arkansas state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:California state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Colorado state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Connecticut state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Dakota territory coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Delaware state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:District of Columbia coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Florida state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Georgia state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Idaho territory coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Illinois state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Indiana state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Iowa state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Kansas state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Kentucky state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Louisiana state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Maine state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Maryland state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Massachusetts state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Michigan state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Minnesota state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Mississippi state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Missouri state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Montana territory coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Nebraska state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Nevada state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:New Hampshire state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:New Jersey state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:New Mexico territory coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:New York state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:North Carolina state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Ohio state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Oregon state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Pennsylvania state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Rhode Island state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:South Carolina state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Tennessee state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Texas state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Utah territory coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Vermont state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Virginia state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:West Virginia state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Wisconsin state coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Wyoming territory coat of arms (illustrated, 1876).jpg Armbrust The Homunculus 05:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Mother and child in desert

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 21:52:20 (UTC)

Original – Caption provided by the U.S. Government: "A common sight among the Armenian refugees in Syria. An Armenian child dead in the fields within sight of help and safety at Aleppo."
Reason
Perhaps one of the most dramatic eye-witness photographs of the Armenian Genocide. An Armenian woman is trying to help her child who's laying dead in the middle of the Syrian desert. Great EV and good quality for such an old photograph.
Articles in which this image appears
Armenian Genocide
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others
Creator
EtienneDolet
I made the current version, and I see what you are referring to. I had taken steps to bring back in the details lost, but I may have rendered too soon. When I get back to my other computer I will see if I can re-render and re-upload. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was hoping would happen. Honestly, you don't really need to worry about grain so much [some grain is usually perfectly acceptable], though I think there is a little more damage to fix: That lighter patch on the child, below the woman's elbow looks like dirt on the image to me. A bit of burn should fix that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I was right about the detail corrections, I'd forgotten to include them in the final render. So I made a new one with those in, and now I'm looking at the whole thing more critically. I think you're right about the grain in that I did too much to remove it. So I'm going to upload a new version of it in a few minutes that corrects the fading around the edges, the dust & scratches, the levels and which picks out the faces just a bit, and stops there. I think everyone will like this version best, but let me know. I can always add more touchups or scale back some. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: @Adam Cuerden: I see what you're referring to on the girl's dress, however when I look closer up, the light area follows the surface of that particular piece of cloth perfectly. I think it's actually discoloration of the material. I could still fix it, but I'm at a point where I'm reluctant to do too much. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it, then. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Ivan Logginovitch Goremykin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 10:49:48 (UTC)

Original – Ivan Goremykin was Prime Minister of Russia during World War I. He was killed during the Bolshevik Revolution by a street mob.
Reason
Part of my work for Operation Great War Centennial (and the Signpost for that matter: Some weeks, the best way to get pictures to illustrate major featured articles - or, in this case, lists - is to prepare them yourself). A fine photograph of an important Russian personage. Eastern Europeans are underrepresented, and I was surprised to find such a good quality photograph. Minor issues - this was pretty clearly originally intended to be oval framed, as the glow in the lower corners demonstrates, but that's a fairly minor issue given the difficulty of finding a better image. There were also a lot of fingerprints on this, by the way. Someone with greasy fingers got them all over the centre of the image. Don't do that, kids.
Articles in which this image appears
Ivan Goremykin, Russian legislative election, 1906 and List of heads of government of Russia
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political
Creator
Uncredited; restoration by Adam Cuerden
PS: Chops seem to have been the done thing in late Imperial Russia. Sca (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ivan Logginovitch Goremykin, c. 1906.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



In the Land of the Head Hunters

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 05:23:40 (UTC)

Original – American silent docudrama film from 1914, by Edward Curtis, on and with Kwakwaka'wakw Native Americans.
Reason
First feature film with Native North Americans, 8 years before Nanook of the North. Considered "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress. Sole film by Edward Curtis. High EV to the article on the film.
Articles in which this image appears
In the Land of the Head Hunters
Format
40 min 10 s, 624 × 480, no audio.
FP category for this image
Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Edward Curtis

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Alexander Mosaic

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 09:41:36 (UTC)

Original – Alexander the Great, depicted on the Alexander Mosaic, originally from the House of the Faun in Pompeii, c. 100 BC. The mosaic is believed to be a copy of an early 3rd century BC Hellenistic painting, probably by Philoxenos of Eretria.
Reason
Finally found this while searching for a good reproduction of the Alexander Mosaic. The image's sharpness allows to see individual tiles of the mosaic, showing this well-known area.
Articles in which this image appears
Alexander Mosaic, Alexander the Great
FP category for this image
Artwork/Others
Creator
unknown
  • Support I thought maybe the camera was positioned a bit to the right of the subject, but it looks like that's just the perspective of the mosaic (we should also get a picture when they finish it; these Romans are sooo slow). Belle (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - an encyclopedia should have good, accurate, thorough versions of art like this, and the Alexander the Great mosaic, well, it is a classic in both the historical and artistic senses. This image looks like it captures everything important about the original piece of art, including the placement of each of the tiles. Gotta love that! KDS4444Talk 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per KDS4444. While I'd like to see us feature the full mosaic at some point, I think this is a reasonably self-selecting detail from it, given the damaged areas cut it off, and it shows the most important figure. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Alexander the Great mosaic.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Franklin Pierce

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 08:53:35 (UTC)

Original – Mathew Brady photograph of United States President Franklin Pierce
Reason
A fine portrait by Mathew Brady. I should note this is a daguerreotype (or, more specifically, a relatively-contemporaneous albumen photo of a daguerreotype, which is good, because daguerreotypes degrade rather badly over time). Pierce died in 1869, before more modern photography became common, of course, but daguerreotypes are a somewhat strange-looking medium to anyone used to more modern images. Still, it's a photograph of a very notable person who lived in a period where we couldn't expect more modern photography.
Articles in which this image appears
Franklin Pierce et al.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political
Creator
Mathew Brady, restoration by Adam Cuerden

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



September Morn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 06:00:42 (UTC)

Original – September Morn is a painting by the French artist Paul Émile Chabas (1869–1937) which caused controversy after it was displayed in Chicago. The city's mayor, Carter Harrison, Jr., charged the gallery with indecency, and later anti "vice" crusader Anthony Comstock targeted it.
Reason
High resolution of a notable painting, perhaps the artist's best known. A scandal, 'twas.
Articles in which this image appears
September Morn, Paul Émile Chabas, Harry Reichenbach, Succès de scandale
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Paul Émile Chabas
  • When I said I wouldn't debate the issue, I didn't mean I wouldn't respond to pointed criticism. The issue here is that this is nominated as a "featured" image. I'm not familiar with nappy advertisements, but if an image of such an advertisement was nominated here which inappropriately eroticized its subject (which I do think is unlikely, but I defer to your expertise), then I would oppose it too while at the same time supporting its appearance in, say, an encyclopaedic article about nappy advertisements. You know very well I'm not a prude, as I took time to annotate a series of Japanese erotic prints you uploaded to Commons at my suggestion. I resent that you don't respect my right to take a discreet position on a matter of principle as I seek to without mocking me. It's doubly surprising because as you know I vehemently objected to your digital restoration of an image of Manet's Olympia, where you warmed the flesh tone in a way that Manet absolutely did not intend or would have countenanced and whose only aesthetic purpose can have been to eroticize the image. Unspoken there regarding my distaste, was the age of the subject. It's well known that Manet's subject was deliberately more girl like than adult. That was a significant element in the uproar his painting caused. In those days the age of menarche of working class girls was about fifteen and a half. Street girls starting a life of prostitution typically around the age of fourteen had barely, if at all, entered puberty, and that is deliberately reflected in Manet's painting. Your clearly inappropriate image found its way to Wikipedia's front page. I would prefer not see this one too. Not on my account. Standards do change you know. You're an ex-pat Brit I take it, who no doubt has heard of Samantha Fox. Directly she had turned sixteen years old, she appeared topless as a page 3 model for the Sun newspaper in 1983 (the by-line was "Sam gives up 'A' levels for 'Ooh' levels", which was certainly amusing to say nothing of her enormous tits of course). The point is that following later amendments to the 1976 Protection of Children Act, that publication would now be illegal, indeed merely to purchase a copy of it also illegal, as the bright line for nudity was set at eighteen years of age.
I don't believe I can have anything more to contribute here. I trust I have satisfied your circle here that my opposition is neither frivolous nor a troll. Mock on. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not thinking. The article is about the painting so there's no alternative image we can use. We're here to evaluate the EV and quality of an image in relation to FP standards - not those of your decency and morals. We're not in the business of painting fig leaves. As it stands, I hope you reconsider your vote in light of the purpose of the project (whether or not it has to appear on the main page is an issue for POTD not one to be settled in the FPC queue. To be sure there are some featured images which are considered distasteful and won't end up on the main page). I think it would be reasonable for the closer to ignore this vote as it has nothing to do with the criteria or standards used here. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good resolution and directly sourced to Metmuseum. The oppose vote above is amusing: how do you know she's "too young"? That's OR, unless a reliable source would say she's under 18 or something like that, but even then such an argument hardly substantiates an oppose in my view. Brandmeistertalk 08:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I also think it is a tasteful depiction and was interested to read about the controversy it caused; it's an attractive piece of artwork and I have no problem supporting the nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Iconic, and certainly not prurient. Sca (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think it's overtly sexual, personally. Like a lot of good art, it leaves the artist's intention and message to the imagination of the viewer. And I also don't think it's obvious that the girl is 'too young'. It's of course hard to judge the age of a fictitious girl though. I mean, there are strong arguments that the Statue of David depicts an underage boy too. Let's not be puritanical about art - it's very different to the abuse of a real child. Unless it could be demonstrated that viewing the image could be illegal, I don't think we really have any moral arguments for prohibiting the featuring of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Going by the article, does that mean this was painted when the girl was 15 and thus underage? --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The model Chabas used more than a century ago may have been 16, but this is not a photograph. The subject in the painting is of indeterminate age and looks to me like she might pass for a female in her early 20s. Further, no genitalia are pictured, and the breasts are depicted rather indistinctly, i.e. with discretion. Again, not prurient by current Western standards. Sca (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support High encyclopedic value and high image quality. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a number of you are being rather precious in discussing whether this image satisfies or not this or that other criteria for indecency. It's a question that after all has been debated with respect to nude images of young people on Wikipedia rather a lot in the past. In the end Mr. Wales himself had to step in and make a common sense ruling about the matter and delete the images. The common sense question about this image you should ask yourself is whether the image would gratify a paedophile and the answer is of of course yes it would. We do all know that now. Go on to any beach in the UK and start taking pictures of children and you run the risk of being arrested. Take an unsolicited picture of a nude young girl skinny dipping as you see depicted here and you certainly will be, if not lynched first. Now that of course doesn't mean images of this painting should be deleted from their articles. But it does mean that we should be sensitive in the matter of featuring it. It's not for nothing that this painting is not available for viewing at the Met. Similarly the Tate has removed its Ovendens from public display. I should think there are similar examples in many other museums. This one likewise needs to stay in the reserve collection. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come now. Its not like this is Child Bride. Hell, this doesn't even have to be on the main page. I personally do not know what the issue is you're raising. GamerPro64 20:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of normal clothed images of children would potentially gratify a paedophile too, just as clothed images of adult women may gratify straight men. That's not the point at all. It's rather irrelevant who might get turned on by what. And why even bring up taking a photo of a young girl skinny dipping when it's pretty obvious that this is a painting and not a photo of a real girl and therefore not a fair comparison. Nobody is being taken advantage of here - there is no abuse victim. Finally, I think you're wrong that you'd get arrested for taking photos of children at a beach. You'd probably attract unwanted attention but under what law could you be arrested? There is no such law, and any attempt by the police to stop you would be probably limited to questioning you and making you feel uncomfortable about what is fundamentally legal. This and this makes for enlightening reading. It sounds like a law that you'd welcome, but the same common sense you refer to suggests it's a ridiculous and dangerous idea to suggest that anyone taking photos of children must be a paedophile and therefore committing a crime. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "run the risk of" and that's absolutely correct in the sense that police have indeed been called out for that sort of thing. I really don't know whether arrests have been made or not. I should think Public Order 1986 would suffice. As a photographer, whose efforts here incidentally I have often lauded, you must surely know that any image of a child nominated FP on Commons will quite likely be rejected if there's no evidence of parental permission.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order here: Wales was deleting any art that contained nudity, mainly paintings of adults. And had to give up his powers on Commons because of this. Let's not act like Wales' actions were at all noble. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. This is the famous US Supreme Court ruling "evil lies in the eyes of the beholder". It sucks. 2% of us *are* evil. One in every street. End of. This is an image that needs to stay under the bed. Get real. Ask any mum. Last from me.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Under US law this painting is also completely legal. The model's parents gave their consent, and were present when Chabas painted her (not in the article yet, but the... "Cold Shoulder", I believe... newspaper article on the talk page has this information). She is nude, but there is no "sexually explicit conduct" as defined by the US criminal code (linked above). For a more modern case, think Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but legality is not really the issue here as I stress. I'm not going to delve into the Graham Ovenden saga I quoted, his paintings are drop dead gorgeous but the fact is he's doing time for them, and he surely had parental permission. Egon Schiele, whose work I adore and upload to Commons (presently too drunk to locate mine amongst the hundreds uploaded, sorry) is another example. It's a question of taste. It's at the Met as you say, but it's not on view. Ask yourself why. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presently too drunk". Can we end this discussion right here for the time being? Because that is quite possibly one of the worst things one wants to hear about an editor on this site. GamerPro64 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the terrible pain of living G. Honestly I can handle it. I also used to do a shit load of dope until the bastards closed down Silk Road (email me anyone if you know an alternative site). Meanwhile I took a deep breath, counted to 10 without inhaling, and found this one I uploaded. I will defend the right of this image not to be featured on Wikipedia to my dying breath. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree with Gamer's comment, I just want to note that the reason it's not on view is not necessarily owing to the model's age. Indeed, when it was first put into storage in 1971, the Milwaukee Journal gave "banality" as the reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleven years old in this discourse: "Current child-abuse studies reveal that in the lack of an object, paedophiles may gratify themselves with fantasies triggered by an illustration, and then may be spurred on to seek real equivalents to the image. This connection drawn between child imagery and paedophilia is not new. French physicians were documenting it as early as 1860. Amid comparable moral panic ignited by French natalists over the 'white slave trade' and girl-child pornography before the First World War, picturing the body before the age of sexual consent became the subject of vehement protest, extensive legislation, and vigorous prosecution. Yet, unlike the fate of Henson and Mapplethorpe's photography, art by 'official artists' that fetishised the child's body, as epitomised by Chabas, was, and arguably remains, untouchable. Why this happened and continues to happen is the subject of this paper ...".
    I have to attend to some other matters now. Probably I shan't be back, even if sober (well frankly, especially if sober). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh well, sober again. I'm glad to see I wasn't offensive. The Brauer article (peer reviewed) looks well researched to me. I'll try and look it up in JStor and write it up for the painting's article. Presumably you didn't notice it? Brauer's estimation of thirteen years old (apparently painted over 3 years - goodness, that's a long time ... ) looks about right to me. I'll look for his sources. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a description of Brauer's paper to the article. I do think this nomination should now be withdrawn. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to see Bauer's article when I've got the time. Most sources, however, give 16. Perhaps a young-looking 16 (one of the newspapers I'm looking over quotes a New York Times article as saying she looks 14), but when even her identity is not known, there's not much that can be done to confirm. Either way, 13 or 16, the legality of this image does not change, and it's not being withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very good of you to try to find the time to review the Fae Brauer article. It's not available on JStor and I'm not prepared to order a photocopy from the British Library through my little local village library (stuff travels these parts ...) I have emailed Fae Brauer herself to ask what her sources are for the age, but as I expect you know academia in general doesn't pay much attention to requests from Wikipedia editors. I see you've been editing at September Morn extensively since, inter alia noting the subject's age as sixteen. I made a small copy edit to indicate that was on Chabas' account (by implication). I can add here it's not clear whether that was her age when she began to pose or at the end of the rather long three year period the painting was executed. I notice that you uncritically repeat the story (ultimately sourced to Chabas I suppose) about the recoiling pose in the freezing waters of Lake Annecy. A more plausible version I should think is that of Suzanne Delve, who claimed to be Chabas' subject at the age of fifteen http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_september_morn_hoax and said she posed in his studio and that the pose arose from her instinctive attempt to protect her modesty. I'm surprised you don't mention this in your considerable expansion (no doubt we can expect a "Did you know" in the fullness of time). I don't doubt that this is the real appeal of the painting to many, the suggestion of voyeurism. I do find this account more plausible because it's absolutely unnecessary to have your model pose in plein air with all its attendant difficulties, of which not least one would be spectators and possible interest from the local gendarmerie . I shall be away again soon, but I shall follow the developments here with interest. My view is that legality in not an issue here. Rather common-sense and good taste. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a work in progress (which should be obvious; if it was anywhere near finalized, that uncited sentence in "reception" would have been nixed already). I refuse to cite Museum of Hoaxes, for what I would hope are obvious reasons (lack of editorial control, little evidence its an RS); the only reason its still there is because I haven't edited it out. Anyways, the content of the article is not germane to this FPC discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's the problem with this http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/26000710/ which is the source for the Suzanne Delve story? It would seem you are applying a degree of editorial discretion as to the quality of the sources cited. A peer-reviewed (whether axe-grinding or not on the question of indecent images of children - erm ... thank god for the axe grinders I and pretty well everyone else, so I would suggest, in the UK trying to protect their children from internet porn and kiddie fiddlers say) paper appearing in a well-known and respected art journal would seem to me to come pretty well high up on the list. This paper cites 11-13 as to the age of the subject. On our community's WP:VERIFY policy that's acceptable to cite. Yet you don't. You say it's something you will look into when you have time. Why is that? I mean, I don't know; I think it's not unlikely that Fay Brauer has gilded the lily somewhat to suit the cut of her axe concerning the subject's age, yes that goes on in axe-grinding academia, but her paper is nevertheless by far the best quality source we have here. Above all, why are you investing so much in this piss poor (yet again the colour of piss as it happens) painting? And why aren't you addressing any of the issues I raise. Balthus? Ovenden? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've added Delve now. Thank you for that. I made a small expansion to say she would have been 13 years old when she first posed for Chabas and to add the significant detail that she struck her pose "instinctively". I noticed that you appear to identify her as wonder if in fact she is the Parisian actress Suzanne Delvé. However there's nothing in the newspaper piece supporting that, which describes her a "hostess". If she really was the actress then she would have been four years older than the 37 given by the piece, making her 17 when she first posed for Chabas. If you would like to OR it, that would be fine by me so long as there's RS at the end of it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things: First, and again, the article's content is not germane to the FPC nomination and only serves to take up space. Second, I did not say she was that Suzanne Delvé. I simply went with the source, in which she describes herself as a former stage and film actress. I recommend that you redact your ABF accusation immediately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missed on the fine print, sorry. The article said "hostess" and didn't accent her name. It's you who is gripped by the issue of her age and legality (not me, I know chicken when I see it), so I would say it is germane. But we can continue on that article's Talk page if embarrasses you to discuss it here. I think it's very likely this is the actress Suzanne Delvé. I can't be arsed myself, but presumably there are images of her out there that can be compared with the one in the newspaper article. That would make the subject 17 - 20 and you could then tell Fay to take a hike on her axe-grinding 11 - 13 pedo band wagon jumping on of and feel vindicated. You could even say something nice about me by way of thanks for helping clear up this very pressing issue in art history (oh, all right, I'll let you off that and your sentiments returned). ABF? Can only find Associated British Foods, but I have made an edit above which I trust soothes you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand me. I also think you misunderstand the general public. I am speaking for the general public who don't interest themselves in the deliberations of a small group of art critics and aesthetes here, but who I believe would nevertheless rather not see this image valorised by Wikipedia, possibly appearing on its front page as "featured image of the day" and directing their adolescent children to the Commons collection of images by Chabas for more of the same. As for Chabas he is a very minor artist, picking up a few low thousands at Christie's from time to time. Xanthomelanoussprog may well be right below in his appraisal of the EV of this artist, but whatever it is it certainly isn't in Artwork/Paintings as the nomination claims. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say, the one thing I agree with you about is that he wasn't a particularly talented artist, based on the rest of the images in the gallery of the article. I quite like September Morn though, it's significantly better than the others. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too. Call it kitsch or banal if you will, but the subject looking off camera, so to speak, evokes a questioning ambiance. Sca (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wordage Log: Preceding discussion comprises 4,000+ words. Sca (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wordage Log: In other words, almost twice as long as the article as it currently stands, and twenty times the length of the article as it was when this image was nominated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did say that I didn't want to debate it, but Crisco made a puerile and infantile intervention. Of course I responded and as the conversation degenerated further I contributed more. The sum of my contributions in the end was to provide the only peer-reviewed source for this painting as well as come up with a fairly plausible hypothesis as to the real identity of the subject. This is a painting that no gallery in the EU or the US would be prepared to exhibit today. What this nomination effectively does is allow Wikipedia its equivalent of exhibiting that painting. That there is just one of me against many here signifies nothing as relatively few people interest themselves in the deliberations at WP Featured Pictures. There are no space constraints in Wikipedia and I am entitled to argue my opposition. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) >[reply]
  • You overlook some important issues. Namely, this is a forum for debate. You can't participate without potentially engaging in discussion. Secondly, that no museum would exhibit this is purely conjecture. Thirdly, that you're the only one taking your position is significant in light of the fact that there's a very clear consensus. Anyone is welcome to voice themselves, but being righteous is far from productive. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, a third point. Your blanket statement "the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" is both pure conjecture and, as the consensus here and in contemporary reviews indicate, rather prudish. You may consider my response "puerile and infantile", but when you make a blanket statement such as that, implying that anything against your view is not common sense (when your position is clearly against both consensus here, in the press, and the legal US definition of child pornography), then follow this by preemptively stating that you won't debate your position, you aren't exactly opening yourself up to rational discourse; you're poisoning the well before any positive discussion can begin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only comment I wish to make here is that I share the view of many that the term "child pornography" is an oxymoron, one that in fact serves to justify its existence, and always use a form of words such as "indecent images of children". For the same reasons I avoid the use of the word "model" in this context and use "subject". I can add that I have scrupulously avoided seeking the input of others here. If I had, I'm pretty sure you it would be you in a minority by now. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Stop whispering! This is a painting that no gallery in the EU or the US would be prepared to exhibit today.? "Other stuff exists"- Sally Mann at the Gagosian etc., and the Chapman brothers' manikins of children. I've had a look at small images of about 80 of his paintings- he must have been churning them out- and his technique seems to be to use thinned "washes" of oils, maybe without any underpainting. To me (and I've not had the opportunity to look at any of his paintings in the (cough, splutter) "flesh") it suggests that his technique may have been more spontaneous and rapid than the three year production claimed for September Morn. Mentioning this in the context of whether the painting has artistic value- it's possible that his technical ability as an artist is being under-rated. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Mann's work is generally acknowledged as touching on childhood sexuality (though I deny there is such a thing in any significant sense, believing that to be a paedophile construct, and incidentally Sigmund Freud himself in later life regretted he concentrated on a discourse of infant sexuality when he should have better accepted he was listening to accounts of infant seduction). However I find her images as unsentimental images of innocence (in the tradition of Mary Cassatt) and certainly not eroticized. The point about your axe-grinding academic Professor Brauer's paper is that she seeks to understand how painters like Chabas escaped censure, while such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Bill Henson did not. I'm away for a while. I don't wish this nomination well. I hope a thousand and one axe-grinding academics descend on it and chop it to death with a million and one indiscriminate cuts (i.e. discriminating between post and poster, myself naturally excluded of course). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a feeling if we were to expand Chabas' article, we'd find the French certainly considered him fairly talented. Grand Prix at the 1899 Paris Salon for Joyeux Ébats, after all. I think, personally, that the massive controversy over September Morn and its widespread reproduction ultimately limited any subsequent opportunity he had to be viewed as a serious artist, but that's getting into OR territory there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fetched £2,120 at Christie's recently. If you're willing to back your hunch with hard cash you can open always an account with them expressing an interest. Pretty sure you will find no shortage of estates willing to offload their collections. I can't find any recent lots for Paul Chabas which still include their Lot notes, which are often very detailed and informative. I'll add him to my own account and when a lot does come up consider editing at his article on the basis of the notes. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to add yet again to the verbiage here. Just trying to be helpful. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Chabas certainly churned out a lot of water nymph fantasies, but that in itself doesn't make him a poor artist. Further, September should be promoted if for no other reason than its enduring power to spur controversy. Sca (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Painting appears to have supported and continues to support a whole industry of impostors, yellow journalism, concerned citizens and axe-grinding academics, and therefore has EV. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Let me be clear: as a gay man, perhaps I am uniquely unqualified to assess the image's sexually erotic or pornographic content. As an aesthete, however, I look at this painting and I say, "Why, it looks lovely." I can see that the young girl has the earliest suggestions of breasts, but their presentation here speaks only of that, and while I do consider breasts generally to be something which is often construed sexually, I don't feel like I would accuse anyone in whose collection I found such a painting of likely having acquired it for sexual purposes or interests— it's, well, it's just not "dirty enough" (by which I mean to say, "not dirty"). It strikes me as nothing more than a beautiful presentation of feminine youth. I see nothing vulgar here. Now, of course, that does not mean that another equally reasonable person cannot see something vulgar or cannot construe this as an inappropriate representation of naked youth, and does not mean that a genuine paedophile might not decide that the image is arousing somehow and go on to do bad things as a result. But I find the proposition of that to be far more of a stretch. Maybe I should also mention that again, as a gay man who is honestly very tired of seeing Jennifer Lopez' "booty" and was blessed never to have witnessed Miley Cyrus "twerking," nothing in this painting tires me, which perhaps suggests its value as art is greater than its value as porn of any kind, whether or not the subject is age-appropriate ("age-appropriate," a factor which becomes irrelevant if the picture is, in fact, evocative of art and not of more base emotions, and I am comfortable saying it is the former and simultaneously is not the latter). I feel I know this because of the queasy feeling I do NOT get when I study it. My barometer doesn't shift. It just seems nice, pretty. I like the color tones. I like the splashes of light. To the extent that the image is of high quality and is of great accuracy (both of which seem to be true, yes?), then it meets the criteria of our other featured pictures. How old the model is has no bearing in a non-sexual image. And lastly, as the brother of a woman who spent a year as a federal prosecutor of child pornographers in the Central District of Southern California and who agonized over the hours of pornographic videotape she was required as part of her job to watch in order to be able to effectively prosecute the offenders (an area of assignment that she requested out of because it made her so ill), sometimes, I think, a cigar is maybe just a cigar. This time, anyway. (Sorry, that all took much too long to say.) KDS4444Talk 15:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, so many people can't be wrong. Subject is decent by modern standards. So many people can ertainly not wrong be wrong about that issue. Age - what? I have a friend that looks almost like this - and she is 30 years. And yes, we sick Scandinavian people do go swiming together all naked everywhere - and nobody turns a hair. We go to sauna too, same thing - all naked together, no problem. If God created man in his own image, so what's the problem? The human body is a natural thing - though some might find it repulsive - well, that's their problem, and it is in their mind, not in the real world. It can be easy to find faults everywhere - if one is loking hard enough... It looks like we are still back in the same old puritan times when this picture was scandalous - what does it say on progress? Let's not all behave like old world Victorians who put covers on the legs of the chairs and the tables because it made them excited. (Cast - no idea - you people will surelly find a decent reproduction of the picture to feature.) Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I got here totally by accident through happening to still have Crisco's talk page on my watchlist from previous (cordial) conversations. I am a broad-minded, tolerant older woman who has serious reservations about censorship. However, to the extent that I have scanned the discussion here and at the article's talk page, I am very largely in agreement with Coat of Many Colours. The image struck me as repugnant the moment I saw it, since it seems obvious to me that the artist's sole intent was to appeal to those who find such intrusive depiction of underage girls titillating. I urge you not to give it the prominence of featuring it on the Main Page. Awien (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...--Godot13 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hafspajen, sorry, but you're missing the point. Neither I nor, I assume, Coat of Many Colours is objecting to nudity as such. I myself had a clothing-optional early childhood, as an older woman I continue to be shockingly immodest by North American standards (shocked a doctor - again - just days ago), I can't think of much that's more ridiculous than having to be clothed to swim or not being able to go naked when it's too hot for clothes, and I have been frequenting the great galleries of Europe for fifty years totally unfazed by 99.9% of the nudes. The problem is not the FACT of nudity, but in this instance the exploitative NATURE of the depiction of the nakedness of an underage girl. Awien (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It's chalk and cheese, but how one defines 'exploitative' is so subjective that I don't think we can throw the word around without defining it more precisely. I agree that (by my own definition), it's not exploitative nudity. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having now helped Crisco out by translating a French critic for him, and as a result looking at other reproductions, it now seems to me that the colour of this reproduction is heavily skewed towards gold. The palette was described as a symphony in grey (blue-grey, green-grey, violet-grey), whereas there's no grey at all in this reproduction. It probably doesn't adequately represent the painting. Awien (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sca: Are you trying to suppress debate here? Why would you want to do that? Awien and Hafspajen, our new contributors, have posted just twice and both their posts have been on topic (whereas yours, on feet fetishism, for example are not always). I've told you before there are no space restrictions on Wikipedia. 103.27.231.148 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warrn't talking to you. Talking to user Sca. {{ping|Sca}} it began. He made an arch post on "pedophilia" (foot fetishism if you're not American) . Hope that clears that up. What I undertook of your mentor was that I would ignore your posts, but I take it you are not so god almightily precious that I cannot even allude to them. Goodness. I was defending your right to post here, for example to register your distaste for the tone of the discussion. 103.27.231.148 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mention my name then', as you did, not mentioning it, for example is a good start. Keep NOT talking to me, and not saying things like:you are not so god almightily precious, (bad style) and I still don't like the tone of this discussion, "puerile" and "infantile" and stuff. Think that nobody called YOU one or two well deserved things. Hafspajen (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If I can see some evidence that the colors are off them I would certainly reconsider based on quality of image issues. I would need to know if the discoloration was due to aging/poor storage of the original(which should not work against the image) or if there were white balance issues or bad lighting. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, based on a Google image search, it's clear that there are a lot of different versions of this painting online. But given that the version we're using comes directly from the MET's website, we should be careful before we assume it's wrong. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debated in the other place here commencing "Quote from article The painting is dominated by grays: the gray of the woman's shaded body, the blue-grays of the September water, the green-grays of the sky, and the pink-grays of the hills".. 103.27.231.148 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that quote is from 1912. A painting can be pretty heavily damaged in that time, especially if its been in storage for most (if not all) of the past 40 years. For someone who claims a knowledge of art history and the fine arts, claiming otherwise is a rookie mistake. As far as I can tell, the less-brown reproductions on the web are probably based on Carson, Gerald. (1961). "They knew what they liked." American Heritage. 12(5); advertisements for this book in Life had a colour print, so I'd think that the book does too. This Life version indicates a bit of yellowing already, though that may be the aging of the magazine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't looked out for other versions of this image but if this one bears any resemblance to the original, then it's quite clear that your nominated version really can't be considered the finest available. I (CoMC) have never claimed a particular knowledge of art history and the fine arts, a personal attack by a user whose username I dare not name in a protected place elsewhere well short of the mark. You can safely hypothesise I think that I am collector of knick-knacks and that my hobby takes me all over the word. I don't in fact collect works of art very much, the occasional little thing by van Gogh and so on that meets the eye, but not in any systematic way. 103.27.231.221 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an artifact in the nominated file, which is accentuated by image processing. The same artifact is present in the linked image, suggesting that it is derived from the nominated file. I think the linked file is the commercially-available version. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you argue for pages and pages that certain scans colours are off, and that any attempts to fix them make them look even worse, driving one editor to almost retire in doing so, but once you make a mistake you say that you "have never claimed a particular knowledge of art history and the fine arts". I will refrain from saying what this makes you, but the implication is here, just as you implied I was something much worse at the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What mistake? And it is a matter of fact that I have never once made any claim to expertise in the fine arts. I would not be very successful in what I do if I had not picked up some expertise, but the fact is I've never once claimed it. That is your certain editor's projection (under diplomatic protection as it were). I'm not sure what Xanthomelanoussprog means by artefact (the coat hidden in the bushes he mentioned in another post? - that would certainly add to the questioning ambiance noted by another editor here), but I don't see how that determines which is the better of the two images. Like user:Johnbod I had never heard of this painting before, though I grant you it appears to have once been enormously popular in the US. But it's quite plain I think that this is a very poor image of a very suspect painting. Here's another example of this artist's ouevre (apparently at the Petit Palais - I doubt it's on display today) I found just now. Not on my account, thank you. 103.27.229.55 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add here - the French national collection databse Joconde lists only 19 works by Paul Chabas, mostly self-portraits and none in the oeuvre he is noted for linked above. I suspect that does indicate those works have been removed from public display. I'll email the Petit Palais to enquire and report back if I get a response. 103.27.229.55 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what, exactly, does his works being displayed / not being displayed have to do with this scan of this painting as representational of this painting? You're veering increasingly off tangent. If you really are on a holiday, why not continue said holiday without dealing with all of this? I'd hate to think you're missing out on satay or whatever while arguing about kitsch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is meant to be erotic by any means. I think 1 in every 5 French movies show more underage or borderline-underage nakedness. And since this is featured at the Met, I don't see how could this possibly be considered to be breaking any actual laws. Quality-wise it should be featured. Nergaal (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prof. Brauer kindly replied to my emailed request for the article Coat originally cited for the 11–13 y.o. estimate (which I will read and parse either tomorrow or the day after). This is pertinent to the current discussion because her article includes a detail and reproduction of the painting, with a significant yellow tinge. The only difference is that it is brighter and that what appears to be damage to the canvas is rather prominent. She does not explicitly state where the image came from, though, whether it is a photograph she took or an adjustment of the MET's scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: the sentence "... Chabas' September Morn continues to hang in the Metropolitan Museum..." (p. 139) indicates that, as recently as 2011, it was still hanging. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image perhaps?. I'll check with the Met. Perhaps it got slashed by an axe-grinding maniac. Can I suggest this nomination is extended so that the group can at least get a reasonable image of the painting to Feature. Please keep your remarks to me on topic, dealing with the issues and not personalities. Whether Chabas' genre paintings of naked young girls are still on display in European galleries is on topic in terms of the oppose that I raised. Satay off the diet-sheet for me I'm afraid, as is (say) kufteh 103.27.229.55 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh also, can you be sure to ask Fay if we can quote her 2001 abstract in full I uploaded that you reverted as you said you would? I expect we can. Her 2011 abstract is marked "© Citation only" meaning we can. Personally I would be satisfied with the abstract quoted in the citation's quote field, but if you feel you would enjoy paraphrasing the paper as an exercise demonstrating how a skilled and respected administrator approaches such a task, that would be great learning experience as well. I've already archived it at http://www.webcitation.org/6SmmP79s0 for you. 103.27.231.183 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not do so by email, but I would probably be willing to do so via Dropbox (you'd just download). This would be intended for discussion re: the article and not further dissemination, however. Regarding the painting: it looks more like dirt and grime have latched onto the painting, possibly damaging the paint, than an attack. You can check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dropbox would be fine, though I don't actually know how it works. I would like to read Prof Brauer's paper. I'm tolerably curious to know how she arrived at 11-13 (pleeease don't come back at me claiming I'm obsessing about age). I'm afraid do I think that's a subjective assessment and if it proves so I would support dropping the age estimate from the article. Needles to say I support her in her general drift as I understand her from the abstract and I am genuinely curious to know how Chabas escaped censure. I see what you mean from the jpg. I frankly rather doubt the Met let it slide into such a condition. I'll email them tomorrow. Regarding this painting, if it really does, or at any rate did originally, look like the version I linked, then I would say it is indeed a very fine painting, and a very different proposition to the image nominated. That doesn't mean I would withdraw my opposition, absolutely not, but at least the enterprise doesn't become quite so ridiculous. I did put the image through my processor and pressed the remove color cast button and what came up was close to the version I link, though it couldn't be used. I wouldn't necessarily call the painting a masterpiece, overused term, but I can well see as Ðiliff remarks, that it's a whole level above other of his work I've seen. If the group must Feature his work, and plainly you are all committed to that, then let's at least Feature a (avoiding 'decent') worthy image of it. After checking at the Met if someone in the group can make a a worthy effort at restoring it per the description and advice from the Met, I would have no objection. 103.27.231.186 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should be featuring the painting as it is now, not as it was at a certain point in the past (think Mona Lisa). It would be agreeable to have the Carson reproduction in the article as an example of what it would have looked like in the late 1950s, in the section describing the painting, if we can cite that it has been severely tarnished over the years (an email from the MET would help there). However, the current look of the painting has more EV than how it looked in the 1950s, as it better depicts the work (as an object, not the image depicted) as it currently is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is I don't know what the painting looks like or what to expect. But I would say that if the painting ever looked like this commercial poster, then I can't imagine it getting into the condition suggested by the nominated image, not in a mere 100 years. I think it's much more likely that the image itself is crap. I mean this group is no stranger to crap Google images, for example. But I'm afraid I shall probably have to retire from this discussion now (lor what a shame). I will email the Met, but I don't frankly expect an answer and indeed if do receive one, I'm not sure I'll be able to share it. I suggest you email yourself. Good luck with your nomination. I mean I think it's totally misconceived and inappropriate, but I do grant at least that the painting itself might have more merit than the nominated image originally suggested. 103.27.229.112 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wordage log: Congrats to all of us nascent art historians and art critics — we have now reached and indeed exceeded the volume of the Miley Cyrus article, which comprises a mere 8,000 words. Our September Morn discussion now tops 8,200 words. Wow. Sca (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image used by Fae Brauer shows damage typical of a dirty and scratched colour slide. Note the rectangular black object lower middle and the two fine lines at an angle to each other. Severe colour fringing at the top may be caused by the slide surface losing contact with a glass surface (mounting or scanner plate). The general dirt actually looks more like what would occur on a paper-based reproduction- could also be dirt on the original canvas- however the reduction in tonal separation in the painting's background suggests that there's some kind of generational gap between Brauer's image and the painting- as if someone had photographed an old and worn postcard on slide film and then left the slide unprotected in an office drawer. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side by side comparison: the "Museum of Hoaxes" digitization (which I think may be from Gerald Carson's 1961 American Heritage "They knew what they liked", and thus be over 50 years out of date) on the left, and an auto-adjusted version of the MET's scan (right). Note that, although some of the colours return to grey, there remain significant yellow stains on the MET's version even after auto-tone.
  • I've uploaded this to aid discussion. The resolution of the MET's scan suggests, to me, that it can't possibly be a postcard reproduction that they scanned, and there is no semblance of paper texture in their version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Brauer's version is the one that looks like a print, not the MET's. If yellow stains are left, and they are present on the original painting, it may be the result of a botched clean- I've seen similar stains on a John Lavery portrait from being wiped down with a damp rag or something. As to Brauer's, I know (secondhand) what the relationship between lecturers and the reprographic department is like :) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right. Not sure what your point is. She meant all his paintings, or at least in his nudie girlie genre which was by far the greater part of his output. It's how he made his living. The fact is that Ruskin, Caroll and Chabas are mentioned all of a piece in this area. Witchard isn't the only source. So what's being done about this particular nomination now that it's conceded its another color-cast image on the Talk page at its article? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passage I wished to draw attention to reads "Pictures like those of Chabas that 'emphasized analogies between the actions of nude little girls and the familiar poses of vanity or physical arousal given to adult woman' had a general market." The in-quote is from Bram Dijkstra's Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-siècle Culture quoted in the previous paragraph and a footnote is provided which reads "Ibid. See for example Lewis Carroll's Portrait of Evelyn Hatch (c.1879-79), a naked child in the erotic pose of an odalisque". An ensuing paragraph references James R. Kincaid. None of the three paintings indexed refer to the passage.
    Have you heard back from the Met yet? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • :) yes, the allusion not lost on me. I think Puberty is the one called The Shepherdess elsewhere, and that's right about the other two titles which seem to refer to the same painting. Edvard Munch actually has a painting called Puberty. There was an image of it on Commons which I had taken down on copyright grounds (he goes PD beginning next year). In the interest of free speech I shall upload a high resolution version to the article and nominate it for Featuring here.
    It would seem this nomination is to go forward tomorrow, even though it's not all clear that the image is a good one. I shall roll my eyes and look away. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Paul Chabas September Morn The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Battle of Franklin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 05:23:22 (UTC)

Original – The Battle of Franklin on November 30, 1864, was a disaster for the Confederates, and, alongside the Battle of Nashville, all but destroyed the Army of Tennessee.
Reason
A fine image; a version of this has long led the page, carefully restored to as near to its original state as one can get. Another image on behalf of Operation Brothers at War.
Articles in which this image appears
Battle of Franklin +1
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War
Creator
Kurz and Allison, restored by Adam Cuerden

Promoted File:Kurz and Allison - Battle of Franklin, November 30, 1864.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Quaker Guns

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2014 at 23:20:20 (UTC)

Original – Quaker Guns at Centreville, Virginia
Reason
A wonderfully encyclopedic view of an interesting example of trickery from the American Civil War. One quick note: The blurry figure at the back is someone who moved; it would be inappropriate to "fix" this issue.
This restoration forms part of Operation Brothers at War, a collaboration in rememberance of the American Civil War on its ongoing 150th year anniversary
Articles in which this image appears
Quaker Gun, George B. McClellan
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War
Creator
George N. Barnard and James F. Gibson; restoration by Adam Cuerden

Promoted File:Centreville, VA, Quaker Guns in the fort on the heights.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Sadhya

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 19:13:15 (UTC)

Original – A variety of vegetarian dish traditionally served on a banana leaf in Kerala
Reason
Well composed photograph with yummy EV. The crop is a bit tight but I still feel its not effecting the beauty and the EV of the image (Size is also a bit small).
Articles in which this image appears
Sadya, Onam, Cuisine of Kerala
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Augustus Binu
*Oh, I know... , (I still need a restaurant, now) ... Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Come to Kerala, next year. This year's Onam is already over on September 7! Jee 16:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Towers of Rouen Cathedral, west view

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 13:16:03 (UTC)

Original – The three main towers of Rouen Cathedral, once the tallest building in the world.
Reason
The three main towers are shown in good quality and light, the image is widely used in articles concerning the topic.
Articles in which this image appears
Rouen Cathedral, Seine-Maritime
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
DXR
  • Fair enough, Slaunger and Belle, yet restaurations of cathedrals take years and imo they are simply a part of reality, especially if we look at cathedrals that suffered in WWII. Imo, the scaffolding didn't obscure the towers too much, but I get the point that they still distract. Thanks for your vote anyway! --DXR (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just thought I'd mention, I know how restorations take long times and scaffolding becomes part of the building for months or even years so that should make it acceptable IMO. However, for this particular scene, I'm not a big fan of the light --Muhammad(talk) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Port de l'Embouchure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 08:32:30 (UTC)

Original – The Port de l'Embouchure, one of the two ports located in Toulouse on the Canal du Midi.
Reason
Lovely little view of the port in Toulouse
Articles in which this image appears
Port de l'Embouchure
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
Didier Descouens
Hi, It was a stormy day, the light was interesting. There were beautiful clouds. I understand the views of Muhammad. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the composition doesn't works for me: too much uninteresting water in the foreground (a hole for my eyes, my view drowns ...). I'm missing a foreground unit, a boot, a path ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Alchemist-hp. While the lighting and clouds are interesting I don't think this illustrates the port very well as looks more like a deserted section of the river. The image in Port Saint-Sauveur is better in the regard as at least we can see some boats and evidence of commerce. The planking just under the surface in the bottom left corner is a bit distracting too (what is that? a sinking raft? do you have an uncropped version showing a ragged shipwrecked sailor with a long beard waving feebly? Because I'd definitely support that). Belle (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Alchemist-hp. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Set: Morpho didius

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 13:31:45 (UTC)

Original – Morpho didius is a Neotropical butterfly. The surfaces of the wings are iridescent and metallic blue and the upperwings are quite elongated.
Dorsal view
Ventral view
Reason
High quality and EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Morpho didius
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Archaeodontosaurus

Promoted File:Morpho didius Male Dos MHNT.jpg
Promoted File:Morpho didius Male Ventre MHNT.jpg --Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Underwater photography

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 13:20:29 (UTC)

Original – A US Navy diver during underwater photography training off the coast of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Reason
High resolution, good framing. Good to see underwater photography being taken.
Articles in which this image appears
Underwater photography
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jayme Pastoric
Comment Hard to understand why this shouldn't have EV? It both has EV and also a good compositon, good light and it is a really useful picture released by the by the United States Navy - about the Expeditionary Combat Camera Underwater Photo Team. Quite a rare and good image. Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that this is centered on the photographer. Which is pretty encyclopedic. The image basically shows what it looks like when someone uses a camera underwater - for an article on just that it seems fairly important. It's not meant to show the individual parts of the gear, and it's not really relevant what he's taking a picture of. The lighting and composition are also fairly pleasing. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an example of what I would consider a good composition. --ELEKHHT 03:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:US Navy 120209-N-XD935-302 Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Shane Tuck, assigned to the Expeditionary Combat Camera Underwater Photo Team, c.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Little Nemo comic strip episode for September 9, 1907

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 12:40:45 (UTC)

Original – Nemo dreams of himself and the Little Imp exploring the big city as giants in the September 9, 1907 instalment of Winsor McCay's comic strip Little Nemo in Slumberland.
Reason
Beautifully crisp scan of an example of one of the best-know early American comic strips
Articles in which this image appears
Little Nemo, Winsor McCay, Comic strip, Sunday comics
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
Creator
Winsor McCay
There's a small amount of dirt. Not much. It's just a nightmare to clean. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Little Nemo 1907-09-29.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Ripon Cathedral set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 21:33:53 (UTC)

  • Ripon Cathedral, North Yorkshire, England
  • The nave looking east
    The nave looking east
  • The nave looking west
    The nave looking west
  • The rood screen
    The rood screen
  • The choir
    The choir
  • The organ
    The organ
Reason
The five images in the set all show interesting and highly detailed views of the stonework, woodwork and architectural style of the cathedral. Of note is the asymmetrical arches and incomplete pillars of the nave which is the result of disruptions of the Reformation in the 1530s when work was stopped on the cathedral. Hopefully people are sick of artwork instead of cathedrals at the moment. ;-)
Articles in which this image appears
Ripon Cathedral
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Yeah, not possible to reduce that. It's not movement between exposures, it's movement within exposures and I've done all I can to minimise it. The problem is that to get a wide depth of field, I have to use f/13, and inside dark cathedrals, that means exposures up to around 10-15 seconds for the longest exposure in the bracket so if there are people in the shot, they will most likely ghost. I guess we've been lucky enough that most of my images have no people in them, but here, it was impossible to avoid. A few from the front of the nave looking back to the entrance is never going to be devoid of people because that's where the volunteer guides tend to stand and it's where all the visitors stand and gawk (or in this case, look through the gift shop items! Yes, most English Anglican cathedrals have gift shops. ;-) ). In the case of the nave 1 image, those people were sitting there pretty much permanently (they were there to demonstrate some kind of art) and couldn't be avoided in that view of the nave. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. They are pretty much invisible at thumbnail size anyways, and I understand your pain (oh so much... but still, gift shops? Don't think I've seen that in Canada or in Indonesia) so support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually in Lithuania at the moment (a kind of Wiki sponsored thing), and trust me, Eastern European Catholic/Orthodox cathedrals are infinitely worse as far as gift shops go. They sell all kinds of kitschy bling relating to this saint or that, and of course lots and lots of candles. Although English cathedrals are definitely tourist attractions too, I wouldn't say most people are visiting because they're strongly religious, most are just interested in the history or architecture. Definitely not like that in Lithuania, where most of the visitors seem very religious. Still, for the most part I haven't felt unwelcome or intimidated taking photos in there. Stay tuned for some Lithuania-themed nominations... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
St. Anne's Church, Vilnius
  • Support Oh, well, File:Ripon Cathedral Nave 1, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg|The nave looking east, File:Ripon Cathedral Rood Screen, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg|The rood screen Fille:Ripon Cathedral Choir 2, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg|The choir; - 'File:Ripon Cathedral Organ, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg|The organ. No gosts for me, hate them, but rest is good. OR SUPPORT ALL, just because a set, (but still hate gost) Hafspajen (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Diagram of a hypothetical ancestral mollusc

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 06:13:08 (UTC)

Original – A diagram of a hypothetical ancestral mollusc ("H.A.M."), sometimes called an archimollusc, a creature of much debate among malacologists which has been redesigned numerous times since it was first proposed in the 19th century. This version represents common opinions on most of its physical features, and is the only extant version anywhere showing the animal in a conceptual cutaway 3-D form.
Reason
This is a revision of a previous nomination of this image from May of 2013. Previous nomination failed principally on grounds of its file size and layout-- both problems have been resolved: image is now below 2,700KB (yay, efficiency!) and I have learned how to adjust the text layout (yay, practice and experience!). More than this, the image is now more detailed, accurate, and, I hope, interesting. Am still taking suggestions for further improvements.
Biologists have always depicted this creature in either profile view or overhead, sometimes from underneath– but with no actual animal to work with, they have never tried to go further than this, and many of the 2-D illustrations are dull and sometimes not very informative (the Internet is replete with those: see here, here, and here for a few examples).
I have depicted the gametes leaving the gonad, traveling across the pericardium, and down the metanephridia, but am not certain this "works" in the image. Also, am not sure it is rendering correctly in all platforms, so please let me know if anyone has any difficulties viewing it or if any organs or parts seems missing or fragmented. These should all be fixed, but you never know.
Articles in which this image appears
Mollusc
FP category for this image
wp:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator
KDS444 Nomination through my Wikipedia account (KDS4444) of an image submitted through my Wikimedia Commons account (KDS444).
  • It wouldn't have been my first choice, but I have now converted the text to paths: all of the words should be appearing in their correct size & proportions in all browsers and in all formats (PNG as well as SVG). Yes? KDS4444Talk 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the text in the SVG view seems to show correctly. However, in the view in Media Viewer, some of the text is still too small. The words "Cerebral", "Pedal" and "Pleural" can just be read (possibly very slightly better than before), but they look uncomfortably and disproportionately small. The word "Gametes" cannot be read. "Incurrent/Excurrent water" could also very usefully be slightly bigger. 86.160.86.83 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text "Gametes" is still uncomfortably small for me at Media Viewer size. Also, I am unclear why it is, uniquely, in italics. Also, the positioning generally of the text in relation to the connecting lines is messy and inconsistent. This is a fussy comment that I would not mention if this had not been nominated as a featured picture. 217.44.215.14 (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had made "gametes" italic and slightly smaller because these were only cells, not organs or body parts, but in the interests of legibility, I have removed those characteristics and it is now the same size as all other text. I need more direction on what you mean by "messy and inconsistent" with regard to the placement of text and lines generally: I made the text either align-right, -center, or -left depending on its position on the page, and placed lines from each organ/ part to its corresponding label— something about how I have done that isn't working for you, and I want to know what it is so I can take a look. Please explain if you can. Thanks! (and don't worry about nit-picking: honestly, I wish I got more of these kinds of small requests because they represent things that I do not notice but which should be changed and are often easy to do so). KDS4444Talk 08:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see this (or this if the first link ceases to work). This is how it looks for me in Media Viewer. I highlighted two of the callouts that show large spacing discrepancy. I disagree that Media Viewer should show the checkerboard background. I raised this before at the MV page, but no one seemed very interested, as I recall. Potentially there is a problem of knowing which colour to make the background if it is not specified in the file. 217.44.215.14 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOW I understand. I have now snugged up the lines and text that you highlighted, and went around the entire image doing the same thing to any I felt weren't well placed. Thank you for pointing this out— this is the kind of thing I would not have noticed but which needed addressing. Please let me know if there are any others you feel I should adjust, or any other aspects that you would like to see changed. Also note that I have now placed a white background behind the image so that there will be no more checkerboards visible through it (I hate them, too). KDS4444Talk 19:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great diagram! I just have a few comments. I think it would be a little more professional to change "Paired Ganglia: Cerebral, Pedal, and Pleural" into "Cerebral ganglia, Pedal ganglia, and Pleural ganglia". Also I think you point to the same anterior tentacle twice, but that's a minor quibble. Quite a nice one here! Mattximus (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the changes, better now. Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That is a gorgeous diagram, and serves a very useful purpose in pointing out the key features. It might be good to emphasize the 3D-ness by having the line for for the rearmost of the two pedal ganglia be obscured by the front of the nerve ring, but that might be confusuing, so use your judgement. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so here is what I have done: I have placed the annotation lines for the pleural and pedal ganglia in correct position for a 3-D image, which has meant putting them behind the shell layer. I think this actually looks pretty good this way. I also went ahead and did the same thing for the lines for the metanephridia so that they, too, are in correct position for a 3-D image. While I was at it, I went ahead and added some "body bumps" to the animal's far side, and changed some of the annotation lines so that they appear as Ys rather than Vs (which I think is useful in a few places). Let me know if you think otherwise, or if there are any other points of the diagram that could use improvement (and thank you for the suggestion regarding the placement of the lines, Adam). KDS4444Talk 12:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)+[reply]
  • Looks very good, but it does mean a couple more tweaks are in order: I'd do the same thing with Cerebal ganglia, for consistency, possibly Statocysts, and maybe Osphradia, though that one passes through so little of the layer that it's barely necessary.. "Two pair of untorted..." points to the near side of the lower nerve cord pair, but the far side of the upper; better to consistently point to the near one. Or point to all four as two "Y"s? A couple of the body bumps are over the top of the pedal retractor muscles (the ones on the left), which seems wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Archimollusc-en.svg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Assignat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 06:06:18 (UTC)

Original – A French assignat note, valued at 400 livres. The assignats were paper money issued by the National Assembly in France from 1789 to 1796, during the French Revolution. They were issued after the confiscation of church properties in 1790, because the government was bankrupt.
Reason
An absolutely beautiful 18th century note, and from France too! Very useful in the assignat article.
Articles in which this image appears
assignat
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Currency
Creator
Design: Government of France; note holder: National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution. Scanned by Godot13

Promoted File:FRA-A73-République Française-400 livres (1792) 2.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



The Evening Air

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2014 at 20:21:00 (UTC)

Original – L'air du Soir (The Evening Air), c. 1893, by Henri-Edmond Cross
Reason
Good quality image; a stylized landscape; a good example of pointillism and divisionism from the artist's middle period.
Articles in which this image appears
Henri-Edmond Cross
FP category for this image
Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Henri-Edmond Cross

Promoted File:Henri-Edmond Cross - The Evening Air - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Nominations — to be closed

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

Big Mac

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 18:45:18 (UTC)

Original – The Big Mac is a hamburger sold by McDonald's. It was introduced in the metropolitan area of Pittsburgh in 1967 and nationwide in 1968.
Alt - canvas size increased to 125%, burger lowered slightly
Reason
High quality image about a notable hamburger = high EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Big Mac (most EV), Hamburger, +3 other
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Evan-Amos
  • Support alt as nominator – Armbrust The Homunculus 18:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm slightly worried this might look better than the hamburger really is. Any information about how much manipulation of the burger happened? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks pretty realistic to me. It looks fairly 'pristine' and probably re-arranged slightly for better presentation (but only in the same way we generally try to present a landscape accurately but in favourable lighting conditions when possible). In terms of the ingredients and their texture, it looks authentic to me. I'm wondering though how he managed to get the burger from the restaurant to a studio set up before the cheese congealed! It looks reasonably fresh. Anyway, this is all just educated guesswork. I'd also be interested to know what manipulation (both digital and physical) took place to present the burger like this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First off, I can't be the only one who feels uncomfortable looking this sandwich. Maybe its from watching Supersize Me one too many times. Also, I notice brown specks around the sandwich on the bottom left corner of it. Are they crumb bits or the sort? GamerPro64 22:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree that there is something (or things) off-putting about the photo, but it's hard to diagnose. I think part of it is the way the middle bun hangs downward and confuses the viewer's perspective, suggesting that the burger is much closer the camera/viewer than it actually was. Another factor that might contribute to the in-your-face quality of the picture is the very tight, front-and-center cropping. Just as an experiment, I uploaded an edit that expands the space around the burger by increasing canvas size 125%. I also moved the burger slightly downward in the hopes that this composition might feel more natural (see the many featured pictures of foodstuffs by User:Fir0002) Tokugawapants (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support alt - I've considered this several times, but ultimately I keep falling back to the idea that a good picture of food has some context (i.e. is not a cutout). Of our woefully underpopulated category, my favourite is easily File:Various grains.jpg. It is clear, well defined, yet also provides a little context. That being said, this is a very good shot of a Big Mac, and he must have had a friendly server to not get the mishmash I always end up with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went back and made some minor edits to the picture. My editing has changed a lot since then, but I just did some minor cleanup. For those wondering about this picture, it's just a plain Big Mac that I picked up explicitly to photograph. I asked for the cheese to be separate, so I would be able to move stuff around on the burger. The cheese normally acts as glue that really prevents you from making it look good after you get it. To prep the Big Mac for photos, I just rearranged the contents so it was pulled toward the front edge. You do this so you can actually see the contents clearly, otherwise it gets buried by the bun. When it's set, I just add the cheese to it and shoot. Evan-Amos (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either. I'm not sure how you could put a Big Mac in its proper context. In it's cardboard box? Sitting on a McDonalds tray in a restaurant? Either way, you might have better context but you'd have a much poorer view of the Big Mac itself... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Half-eaten next to an overflowing bin in the street with a single sliced pickle next it being sniffed disdainfully by a stray dog. That's how I normally see them. Belle (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the interests of encyclopaedic accuracy, do you suggest we investigate high street bins searching for the most authoritatively presented Big Mac we can find? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      When I tried reproducing this (the results were nowhere near satisfactory, and I didn't go to the extent Evan did) I tried positioning the BM on top its box, with a white wall behind it. Perhaps not as colorfully contextual as a dumpster (*wink*), but it goes well with the impersonal McD persona. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either, prefer alt. I think I'd have preferred a shadow, instead of a full cutout, but I reckon this'll do nicely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either Nice, especially since food is quite rarely nominated here. Brandmeistertalk 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt - While both images are pretty good in their own right, the alt comes off as less off putting to me. GamerPro64 15:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until clarified Is this a real Big Mac, or is it some form of "substitute" made to be photographed? I've never seen one looking like that (i.e. cleanly and well arranged) in any MacD place I've ordered one, anywhere in the world... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See the photographer's comments above. Belle (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I think myself and the nominator were the only ones who !voted before the clarification was made. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, the photographer used only the real ingredients but strived to photograph it in an ideal state, rather than as typically prepared and served by a pimply-faced teenager who wishes he was somewhere else. I don't think that's necessarily any different to (to use another photographic example) going out and taking a photo of the most pristine flower or the butterfly with the least tattered wings, taking a photo of a landscape on a sunny day with blue sky as opposed to overcast and flat, or something like that. It's not misrepresenting reality necessarily, it's just trying to get the most aesthetic view of the subject. But whether that makes it representative, well that's a matter of debate. As photographers, I think we naturally lean towards aesthetics, but I can see both sides of this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I share Diliff's worries, here. I'm not particularly keen on striving to display this in a positive way. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As opposed to...? Landscapes? Other products? A whopper (which, BTW, we really need a better picture of)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There seems to be a kind of bias among a lot of commenters against attempting to display something which is 1) a commercial product and 2) generally regarded as distasteful in a professional light (which reflects positively on an object with a negative connotation). FP regularly prefers sites popular with tourists devoid of people, plants which in peak bloom and virgin condition, household products which look fresh out of the catalog, and many others. While I think this could be taken too far (look at how McDonalds photographs the Big Mac) this particular image strikes me as being along the same lines as many others which we have passed before - balancing between honesty and professional. As a follow-up, here's some featured salad. That's a lot nicer than I generally plate one, and probably a lot more aesthetic than when you do it, too (if it's not, by all means please have me over for dinner). But no one was terribly upset about that. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, but I think I see where the problem is: the Big Mac is instantly recognizable as belonging to a particular entity, is still available for sale (and heavily promoted), and is synonymous with junk food. The first two make the commercial value of featuring such an image on par with a current video game, film, or TV series (i.e. conceivably affecting the company's bottom line), while the third is a matter of prejudice. That being said, I firmly believe that we should judge the image itself, in all cases, rather than any possible commercial/promotional effect. I mean, File:ULPower UL260i.jpg is straight from the company's advertising material, but there were no complaints when it was nominated. Reviewers let the image speak for itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed also. I think it's necessary to leave ideology at the door when participating in FPC. Obviously we don't want to overtly support a company's product, but the image is a long way from anything that we would normally considered promotional. We've established that it's presented better than is normally the case by a worker at a McDonalds restaurant, but it's clearly not the kind of photo normally seen in advertising either and I cannot really conceive that McDonalds would benefit from, or indeed desire for us to feature an image of its signature burger in this manner. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 02:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either, prefer alt. It's nicely done. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting sick just looking at it. Sca (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the fact that it has been arranged in such a way as to make it appear more substantial makes it a poor representation of the subject (It's like a push-up bra for burgers) Belle (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it is a fair and reasonable depiction of a Big Mac. OK, so often they come out a bit more squashed than this, but you could say the same about a picture of a piece of fruit, or a flower, or whatever. Often the ones you buy or see are not as perfect as the pretty picture. The best ones are obviously going to be chosen to be photographed (normally). 109.147.185.178 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like that things were pulled to the edge. To me an ideal pic would have a cross section view alongside the original unmodified one --Muhammad(talk) 08:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Muhammad above that a cross-sectional approach, as is regularly employed with fruit FPs, would probably be better at faithfully representing the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --The herald 02:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure with what you say. Are you saying that it must be considered as a close much before officially closing it? Then in that case, I don't think I am wrong. Neither consensus nor votes can pass this nomination and hence its better to be closed officially.. The herald 12:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that you should take time to review the closing rules before actually closing nominations. While the closure here is, in my opinion, correct not knowing what consensus for passing is (80% vs 66%) is a pretty major oversight. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



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.

Closing procedure

A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Armbrust/closeFPC.js

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. 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.

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}}.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. 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.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the November archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

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, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

  1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
  2. 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.
  3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), 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.

If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), 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.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. 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.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

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 full days following closure and subsequently be removed.

Dutch Guiana playing card money, 1 guilder (1801)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 04:42:27 (UTC)

Original – One guilder, playing card money (1801). Prior to the formal introduction of paper currency, playing card money, denominated in Dutch Guilders, was used in Dutch Guiana (now Surinam) from 1761–1826.
Reason
High quality, high EV. Very early example (1801) of playing card money (see Card Money in New France for general description) from Dutch Guiana (now Surinam). Rare, not illustrated in most references.
Articles in which this image appears
Card money, Dutch guilder
FP category for this image
Currency
Creator
Netherlands
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.
Image by Godot13.
I'm not sure there is enough information (reliable sources). I could hardly find anything on the internet and even the general world numismatic references don't have more than a sentence or two for card money in Dutch Guiana...-Godot13 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dutch Guiana-Suriname-1 Guilder (1801) card money.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Chevelle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 16:38:18 (UTC)

Original – Alternative metal band Chevelle, pictured in 2014. From left to right: backing vocalist and bassist Dean Bernardini, lead vocalist and guitarist Pete Loeffler, and drummer and percussionist Sam Loeffler
Reason
A high-res, professional photograph freely released by the record label. What more could you want?
Articles in which this image appears
Chevelle (band)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Epic Records

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



The Great Day of His Wrath

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 15:56:36 (UTC)

Original – The painting shows the "Destruction of Babylon". - (This is how it looks like when somebody makes God angry).
Reason
Most striking image from the romantic painter John Martin. The Romantic movement validated intense emotions. The movementwas placing new emphasis on emotions as authentic apprehension, horror and terror, and awe— especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities: new aesthetic categories, and very different from Realism and Classicism as a source of aesthetic experience. Very EV-ish, has actually two own articles.
Articles in which this image appears
The Great Day of His Wrath; The Last Judgment (Martin painting), John Martin (painter)
FP category for this image
Artwork/Paintings
Creator
John Martin

Promoted File:John Martin - The Great Day of His Wrath - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



William I of the Netherlands

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 14:34:26 (UTC)

Original – King William I of the Netherlands in Coronation Robes by Joseph Paelinck, ca. 1818–1819
Reason
High quality scan of an attractive portrait long used in the article (though in lower resolution than what I just uploaded). Nice to have another king in the ranks.
Articles in which this image appears
William I of the Netherlands, List of monarchs of the Netherlands
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator
Joseph Paelinck

Promoted File:William I of the Netherlands.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Suleiman Kova and media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2014 at 04:23:29 (UTC)

Original – Police Commissioner Suleiman Kova answers and addresses the media at ground zero near the 2013 Dar es Salaam building collapse
Reason
Very good EV and gives and indication of how much coverage this disaster received and also how an official may typically be swarmed reporters and cameramen
Articles in which this image appears
2013 Dar es Salaam building collapse, Broadcast journalism, Journalism, Journalism genres
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Promoted File:Suleiman Kova and media, 2013 DSM Building Collapse.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Woman Holding a Balance

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 20:41:06 (UTC)

Original – Woman Holding a Balance. Pearls and jewels are outspread in front of her, but behind her Jesus judging the souls of the deceased in the picture depicting The Day of the Lord .
Reason
The great Golden Age painter, Johannes Vermeer 's masterwork. The woman in the picture is measuring - something. Some critics perceive her as measuring her valuables, others that she is measuring what is important in life (the woman is pregnant). She is weighing her valuables too see what they are worth. But behind the woman hangs a painting representing The last judgment. Some say the juxtaposition with the final judgment is suggesting that she is focusing on the treasures of Heaven rather than those of Earth. Other art critics compared the use of ligh with the traditional paintings of the Annunciation theme.
Articles in which this image appears
Woman Holding a Balance
FP category for this image
Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Johannes Vermeer
  • Comment Congratulation for a sharp comment, Fylbecatulous. This is exactly what the art critics say - the more one is looking at a Vermeer, the more one dicovers new things, it has an abundant richness of meanings and details - even though they look - simple enough in the beginning. As Godot said, they - never feel redundant... Hafspajen (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Johannes Vermeer - Woman Holding a Balance - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Man Writing a Letter - Woman Reading a Letter

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 20:19:25 (UTC)

  • Original – Man Writing a Letter has its pair, the woman who is reading the letter posted by him. Exposed at the National Gallery of Ireland.
    Original – Man Writing a Letter has its pair, the woman who is reading the letter posted by him. Exposed at the National Gallery of Ireland.
  • Original – Woman Reading a Letter
    Original – Woman Reading a Letter
Reason
Gabriël Metsu (1629 – 1667) was a Dutch Golden Age painter, who's best pictures were genre works and portraits. While not that iconic as Vermeer, these pictures are of high artistic merit. These are works that are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. They were nevertheless desirable and they were stolen a couple of times, in 1974 and again in 1986 from the Russborough House, from the Beit collection. Both times the Woman Reading a Letter and Man Writing a Letter was stolen and recovered. Painted as a a pair and also owned and stolen as a pair, they are currently exposed at the museum as a pair, at the National Gallery of Ireland.
Articles in which this image appears
Woman Reading a Letter and Man Writing a Letter and Gabriël Metsu
FP category for this image
Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Gabriël Metsu

Promoted File:Man Writing a Letter by Gabriël Metsu.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Woman Reading a Letter by Gabriël Metsu.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 16:04:33 (UTC)

Original – Joseph and Potiphar's Wife is a 1634 etching by Rembrandt (Bartsch 39). It depicts a story from the Bible, wherein Potiphar's Wife attempts to seduce Joseph. It is signed and dated "Rembrandt f. 1634" (f. for fecit or "made this"), and exists in two states.
Reason
Well, y'all wanted more pixels, y'all got more pixels. I blame Belle for teaching me the black magic needed to summon this Rembrandt. Yeah, Belle. All Belle. (Seriously though, high quality scan of a notable engraving, by a very notable artist... made all the more interesting that it's one of only a few of his works that can be classified as "erotica")
Articles in which this image appears
Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching), List of etchings by Rembrandt
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, maybe?
Creator
Rembrandt
  • Support as nominator –  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would like to support this but I can't... Crisco, I love you, don't take this personally - but that woman ... is just terrible. Hafspajen (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • She does seem anatomically... awkward. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. There's something off-putting about her, but we'll have to wait to tell Rembrandt about it. Or perhaps it was deliberate... a woman comfortable in her sexuality would have probably been considered deviant in the 17th century, and he may have tried to represent this physically, with a tension which disturbs the viewer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - While I agree with both Hafs and Diliff regarding the anatomical awkwardness of the female figure (and am not excited by this particular etching), it is the sole illustration in its own article and appears to be of fairly high quality and resolution.If this grows on me I may go full support later--Godot13 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, it's not that it grew on me as much as I don't buy my own reasoning- whether I like the image or not it's well made, has EV, and perfectly illustrates the article written about it.--Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I'm getting the blame for it. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the woman, Joseph seems more contorted, but it is more about the quality of the image and its value to the encyclopedia which are both fine (that's a bit weak; both good; both excellent). Belle (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry - but this is not one of Rembrandt's best works. He was a great master, but he had sometimes the unhappy tendency to draw in an uncertain way. We do all excuse this, because he was a superb colorist, but the truth is that he was an artist who couldn't draw with the same accuracy as the other great artists- Rubens, Michelangelo, Durer, and so on - this is one of his works demonstrating it - not the best of his production. Hafspajen (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rembrandt's less impressive work could still have EV I suppose, because it shows his weaknesses rather than the usual strengths that are showcased with artists. Featured Pictures aren't always about the most beautiful subjects. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone's saying you're against me. Although the quality of the work is low (by Rembrandt's standards... I'll be damned if I can draw like this), the fact that the work has its own article means the encyclopedic value is there. I rather like the one of the old man, but without an article on the etching, it doesn't have that much EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can draw like this. (Not Rembrand's style, but my style. different, but basics are always same - and the anatomical correctness is one criteria.) And I am still saying that it is not anatomically correct. Hafspajen (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. Not among Rembrand's etchings and not among the subjects representations. Again, please don't take it personal. I do like you a lot. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not taking it personal. I'm trying to understand how you're approaching this. I'm not seeing how it is not the best example of "Joseph and Potiphar's Wife (etching)" that Wikipedia has to offer. When the original work is already "not anatomically correct", any reproduction will have the same fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if we define the subject not as merely 'Rembrandts' (of which this is certainly not one of the best) but 'Rembrandts that are not well drawn, well known or appreciated'. Then surely it's one of the best examples. ;-) It's all about what you want to illustrate. Anyway, I'm not intending to harrass you, just engaging in friendly debate to stimulate the discussion! I'll bow out now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


No, no, this is not harrasment, I can tell the difference... . We discuss. Is not the best example of "Joseph and Potiphar's Wife see Potiphar... And not Rembrands best etching, (article or not). That's all. Hafspajen (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rembrandt - Joseph and Potiphar's wife.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Summer Evening at Skagen. The Artist's Wife and Dog by the Shore

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 12:38:14 (UTC)

Original – Summer Evening at Skagen. The Artist's Wife and Dog by the Shore. Krøyer‎ doesn't do snappy titles, but his paintings are lush.
Reason
It's another beautiful painting of Marie by Krøyer, technically woooooooo, very kindly uploaded by Crisco 1492 after I did my damsel in distress act (not an act really), important in Krøyer's oeuvre as one of his "Blue Hour" paintings (that's the light not porno time). Big enough. Come on, it meets the criteria, just get voting (support).
Articles in which this image appears
Summer Evening at Skagen. The Artist's Wife and Dog by the Shore, Peder Severin Krøyer‎, List of paintings by Peder Severin Krøyer‎
FP category for this image
Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Peder Severin Krøyer‎ (him of the impressive facial hair)

Promoted File:Summer evening at Skagen - P.S. Krøyer - Google Cultural Institute.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Henry Ossawa Tanner - The Good Shepherd

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 10:10:56 (UTC)

Original – Henry Ossawa Tanner
Reason
Henry Ossawa Tanner (1859 – 1937) was an African-American artist. He was the first African-American painter to gain international acclaim, and he has been called "the greatest African American painter to date." But he was also a very interesting and original artist and a very good painter. His painting, Sand Dunes at Sunset, Atlantic City - is hanging in the White House, in the Green Room. It was the first painting by an African-American artist to be purchased for the permanent collection of the White House. (If anyone feels like writing an article on it and nominating it, here's the file File:Henry Ossawa Tanner - Sand Dunes at Sunset, Atlantic City - Google Art Project.jpg).
His painting, The Good Shepherd is part of a series of paintings he painted inspired by his wisit in Jerusalem. He was one of the painers that tried to paint biblical themes in an original enviroment - and in a very imaginative, ingenious, and innovational fashion. These pictures beside they have a dreamy quality, also evoke some of the athosphere of the ancient Jerusalem, and depict the biblical characters in a non-dramatical way, showing them in their every day lifes, talking or walking around - but not in a sensational, spectacular or overdramatic manner.
Articles in which this image appears
Henry Ossawa Tanner, Traum durch die Dämmerung
FP category for this image
:Wikipedia:Featured pictures#Artwork#Paintings
Creator
Henry Ossawa Tanner
  • Well, I'd love that too. But with this particular painting there is nothing we can go about the cut off signature. It is framed and exposed like this att the museum, it looks exactly like this - AT THE MUSEUM. We can try to ask the museum to take the work out of the frame and make a better scan maybe (?). The question is IF it is doable, I have seen many paintings taken out off the frame at a restaurator I was working for a coulpe of month - but they usually have a different color - then the rest of the picture. Probably because of the light from the sun - that causes oxidation. Hafspajen (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason ... could have been that he put that signature so low that it was not possible to frame it in a different way ...Hafspajen (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Bharata Natyam Performance

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014 at 20:41:28 (UTC)

Original – Bharata Natyam Performance
Reason
Though the picture is not that sharp, good composition, lighting and pose. None of the Indian Classical performances in FP I have noticed and very high EV
Articles in which this image appears
Bharata Natyam
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Augustus Binu

Promoted File:Bharata Natyam Performance DS.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Echmiatsin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2014 at 19:45:13 (UTC)

Original – The Etchmiadzin Cathedral and the surrounding by French traveler Jean Chardin
ALT CROP
ALT1 - With caption.
Reason
Great EV. Exceptional quality.
Articles in which this image appears
Etchmiadzin Cathedral, Vagharshapat
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator
Jean Chardin
It looks like this when printed.
  • Comment - the fram has spots and marks .. probably this is why it is cropped. Strictly the frame is not part of the engraving, it is just the paper it is printed on. I recognize this building, even if the presentation doesn't saying it, is considered the oldest cathedral in the world. Hafspajen (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite confused over your reasoning behind the oppose vote Belle. For one, the "title" is in a foreign language. Why have it when it can be easily conveyed to the reader in a form of a caption that can be easily translated into English? In fact, I don't see this as a title at any rate. It's more of a caption than anything else. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call it an aesthetic choice if you wish. Caption, title, it doesn't make much difference; it is part of the engraver's work. Perhaps I'm looking at it from the point of view of featuring the the engraver's work rather than featuring a representation of the cathedral, so that it is not in English doesn't alter my feelings at all; the caption gives it some context. I don't like the tight cropping of plates either, the size of the image in relation to the paper is often an artistic choice too. I'll strike my oppose as I'm on shaky ground with the criteria (woooo, I felt it give a bit then), but I won't support either (so, a wall of text for no discernible change in the nomination's status; good one, Belle). Belle (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I rather keep the captions for images like this, as they are part of the artist's creative endeavour, presentations to viewers and readers. Hence why I haven't !voted here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, without the caption, you're also removing the edges of the image, which means it could never be printed in such a manner that it was at all similar to how engravings are printed - razor-sharp borders are not something seen in engravings. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Suspended nominations

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=626538671"