Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:54, 20 November 2015

Skip to:

Table of contents
Current nominations
To be closed
More input needed
Recently closed
Suspended candidates

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

Current nominations

Ostrich portrait

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2015 at 12:52:53 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution, good quality picture with high EV of an ostrich portrait showing its large eyes and long eyelashes, its flat, broad beak, and its nostrils.
Articles in which this image appears: Ostrich
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: William Warby

Support as nominator – —Bruce1ee^talk 12:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait! --Tremonist (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Very nice, but beak is OOF. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - beak out of focus. Plus: I opened this photo on a full screen an my first thought was: "it's yet another one of these photos made in one of the European ZOOs, isn't it?" - I nailed it. Sorry, but I would forget about out of focus beak and poor lighting if it'd be done in a natural environment, but here - light, background, reflection in the eyes, everything screams "zoo". From a photographs in a zoo I expect perfection. SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilatus P3-03

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2015 at 05:01:29 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and EV. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Pilatus P-3
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: Julian Herzog

Support as nominator – sst✈^discuss 05:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Great capture... Looks perfectly crisp to me, and is even demonstrating the retraction of the undercarriage for good measure... Beautiful piece of machinery to boot... gazhiley 10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WPPilot might be interested in this too... gazhiley 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 02:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 13:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pilatus P3-03 P3-Flyers HB-RBP OTT 2013 02.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica, 20 Colónes (1897)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2015 at 23:19:48 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image, high EV, very good condition, first year of issue for the Costa Rican colón.

Articles in which this image appears: Costa Rican colón

FP category for this image: American currency

Creator: Costa Rica (coin)
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History.

Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I like the contrast/shadow/depth thing! Is it the lighting or surface depth, or both? Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in part because this is a proof coin, which contributes to a sharper strike and smoother fields.--Godot13 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Costa Rica 1897 20 Colones (proof).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminations: Reflections of Earth Picture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2015 at 21:43:43 (UTC)

Reason: This photo has great exposure, and lighting for a picture of fireworks, compared to others. The photo seems to be comparable to professional photos, in my opinion.
Articles in which this image appears: IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth
FP category for this image: Entertainment
Creator: chensiyuan

Support as nominator – Elisfkc (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Horizon could be straightened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the picture is from one of the side of World Showcase Lagoon, which is basically a giant circle. This may affect your view of the horizon. Personally, the horizon looks pretty straight to me. Elisfkc (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even the buildings don't look as if built on even ground what, of course, should be assumed they are. What's wrong with the perspective here? --Tremonist (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The perspective is partly messed up thanks to the use of forced perspective for the buildings. The American Adventure, the building on the far right that's lit up, is actually five stories tall (not including the top part), but made to look like it's two and a half. Most of the other buildings are made to look larger than they are. I don't remember exact sizes for the rest of them, but if my memory serves me right, most of them are two to three stories. Elisfkc (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Everything in the background is leaning into the centre, especially at the extremities of the picture... gazhiley 09:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Gazhiley: please see the explanation above for the reasons as to why that is. Elisfkc (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the use of forced perspective is plausible for something in Disney World. Good enough. sst✈^(discuss) 15:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 06:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 00:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:1 epcot illuminations 2010.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambrogio de Predis - Bianca Maria Sforza - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2015 at 17:09:35 (UTC)

Reason: Bianca Maria Sforza painted by Ambrogio de Predis, (1455 – 1508) a rather interesting Italian Renaissance painter from Milan. Bianca Maria Sforza (1472 – 1510), was the Holy Roman Empress and the second wife of Maximilian I, the eldest legitimate daughter of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan. It is a Google Art Project file... hope they don't mess this up.; (Holy Empress Cap see here= )
Articles in which this image appears: Bianca Maria Sforza, Giovanni Ambrogio de Predis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator: Giovanni Ambrogio de Predis

Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3,086×4,951 px for a 51x32.5 cm artwork is impressive. Brandmeister^talk 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A little dark, but fine IMHO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; a great candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support –sst✈^discuss 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ambrogio de Predis - Bianca Maria Sforza - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Jerome in His Study

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2015 at 16:19:48 (UTC)

Reason: Good scan, good painting. The small painting - 45.7 × 36.2 cm (18 × 14.3 in) - shows St. Jerome working in his studio, on his translation of the Bible into Latin, called later the Vulgate. The painting is made by Antonello Messina, Italian Renaissance painter who lived in Messina, Sicily, - was an artist influenced by the contemporary Flemish school: all details he painted was done with "a magnificent taste for detail". The painting is in the National Gallery London http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/antonello-da-messina-saint-jerome-in-his-study
Articles in which this image appears: St. Jerome in His Study (Antonello da Messina) (own article) + Italian Renaissance painting
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Antonello da Messina

Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support –sst✈^discuss 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 02:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – and I thought my studio was fussy Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Insufficient lion, I think. Now here's a nice picture of Jerome and his puddy-tat. Deor (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Antonello da Messina - St Jerome in his study - National Gallery London.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Seymour

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2015 at 19:24:15 (UTC)

Reason: High quality portrait painting about an English queen, and thus high EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Jane Seymour (most EV), Wives of Henry VIII, List of English consorts, +14 others
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator: Hans Holbein the Younger

Support as nominator – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Tremonist (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. Hafspajen (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support –sst✈^discuss 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 02:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hans Holbein the Younger - Jane Seymour, Queen of England - Google Art Project.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kapellbrücke

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2015 at 12:01:00 (UTC)

Reason: HQ + EV
Articles in which this image appears: Kapellbrücke & List of bridges in Switzerland
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Ikiwaner

Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Leider, lacks detail at full res. Sca (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. I'm confused by the lack of detail in this - it is what I'd expect from a picture of a much smaller size. Not sure if this is a processing issue, or focus, or whether it's a technical limitation of the camera used. However It is a lovely picture, so if this can somehow be fixed, or re-taken if not, I would gladly support. But this picture is unfortunately not up to standard. gazhiley 12:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca – Jobas (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If Ikiwaner decides to retake it (nächstes Jahr?), I'd suggest a bit less watery foreground. That would yield a better view of the extremity of the bridge. Sca (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. – Tremonist (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist & Replace: File:Pittsburgh dawn city pano.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2015 at 02:25:35 (UTC)

Reason: Proposed replacement is more recent (2015 vs 2007) and contains a new skyscraper (the Tower at PNC Plaza which just opened a month ago); higher resolution (3500px tall vs 1200px); more dynamic range.
Articles this image appears in: Pittsburgh, Mount Washington (Pittsburgh)
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pittsburgh at dawn, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Pittsburgh Panorama
Nominator: dllu (t,c)

Delist & Replace — dllu (t,c) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace based on the much higher quality of the 2015 image, which is fantastic all around. However, I caution against the delisting images based on being more recent and containing new skyscrapers. Such images may be valuable in their own right as the best images we have of a particular setting at that point in time. In this case, there has been very little variation in the skyline between the two photos, and it shouldn't be an issue. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Proposed replacement – Jobas (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace – Obviously. Yann (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace – Tremonist (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace – older image has insufficient resolution and has issues noted in its FPC. sst✈^discuss 13:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace – great quality of the new version SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Pittsburgh skyline panorama at night.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and Replace: 1933 $20 Saint-Gaudens double eagle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2015 at 20:27:03 (UTC)

Delist

Replace

Reason: The proposed replacement for the existing images of the 1933 $20 double eagle is higher resolution and, at full size, much sharper and detailed. On the obverse of this Saint-Gaudens double eagle, at Liberty's feet, is a black fiber that would not willingly be separated from the coin. I hope the increased detail mitigates this one flaw. Given that the proposed delist is actually two images, the layout is a bit awkward.
Articles this (replace) image appears in: 1933 double eagle, Double eagle, Saint-Gaudens double eagle
Links to the EN:WP article(s) that use the image proposed for delisting: none
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1933 Double Eagle
Nominator: Godot13 (talk)

Delist & Replace — Godot13 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Original uploader notified.--Godot13 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The contours of the current FP are a bit more prominent. They seem almost faded in the suggested replacement, at least at thumbnail size. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, I just felt that the detail and ability to see texture and artistic work was significantly greater on the proposed replacement (not to mention the replacement is fairly sharp at 100%, where the original seems a bit lacking).--Godot13 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. What if you were to increase the clarity slider a tad? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good suggestion. I will try that and (if it is an improvement) will upload a new version by late Monday...--Godot13 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chris- Change made, file overwritten, not too much change...-Godot13 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or just take another pic, from the half roll you have stashed somewhere. Vesuvius Dogg (talk)
        If Godot's got half rolls of this stashed somewhere, he's certainly not gonna say so. Doubt he wants the Secret Service after him. ;) (check out the article) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I guess the sharpness does outweigh the thumbnail appearance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the replace – Jobas (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace – Tremonist (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – of course. sst✈^discuss 12:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:NNC-US-1933-G$20-Saint Gaudens.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman Creek

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2015 at 14:41:42 (UTC)

Reason: Bowman Creek is a 26-mile (42 km) long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Wyoming and Luzerne Counties, Pennsylvania. It is fortunate enough to have high water quality and to be a regionally famous trout stream. This particular picture shows the creek looking downstream from Keelersburg Road, the last road crossing before the creek joins the Susquehanna River, at river mile 0.7 (river kilometer 1.1). It's got the highest combination of technical value and prettiness of any of the 30 or so pictures of Bowman Creek on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Bowman Creek
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Jakec

Support as nominator – --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but: Substandard detail, excess foreground, poor lighting. Sca (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above, but it also looks like it's at a really odd angle - the river around the corner looks bizarrely going uphill despite the water running away from the camera... I would expect the water to be pooling at the left hand side of the bend based on this angle... gazhiley 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a decent and worthwhile photo in its own right, but per the above, it's not of feature picture quality. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca – Jobas (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. --Tremonist (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Greenhouse blast

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2015 at 07:02:26 (UTC)

Original – Operation Greenhouse - George test. Early fireball.

Reason: Slow motion film of the Operation Greenhouse nuclear weapons test, which places emphasis on the early fireball generated by the nuclear blast.
Articles in which this image appears: Operation Greenhouse, Nuclear explosion
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Federal government of the United States

Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see any mention of this particular test in the target article. It would seem to have more EV if the file was in the Operation Greenhouse page. APK whisper in my ear 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @AgnosticPreachersKid: I added the flick to the Greenhouse test shot page. Is that what you were referring to? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thank you. APK whisper in my ear 01:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jobas (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We should not be promoting Theora video in 2015. - hahnch e n 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Free format, quality video, support. SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green hairstreak butterfly

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2015 at 10:37:21 (UTC)

Reason: Fine detail on fresh specimen of this rarish butterfly. Featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Green hairstreak
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp 10:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me this nice little butterfly surely deserves. --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support high quality and EV sst✈^discuss 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Hafspajen (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 00:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Green hairstreak (Callophrys rubi) 3.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Trip Down Market Street

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2015 at 11:14:35 (UTC)

Original – A Trip Down Market Street, a 1906 film of San Francisco before the earthquake and fire

Reason: the film was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress
Articles in which this image appears: A Trip Down Market Street
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Miles Brothers

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for historical reasons, of course, and because I like it. High EV, it helps understand traffic in former times. --Tremonist (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting slice of life at a time when the U.S. was transitioning from horses to cars. Very good res. for the period – much better than, for example, this 1909 footage of Mark Twain. Sca (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely and high EV. Wolftick (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I do think it's a bit of a shame that so much additional digital compression is added to archival digital transfers of analogue film stock. Treated as a series of stills this would not be acceptable. Much larger file sizes and higher resolutions would be preferable for any analogue to digital transfer, whatever the perceived quality or age of the original. Wolftick (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is DVD quality version (Quicktime, 2.3 GB) on IA. It would interesting to make a free codec version out of that. I have neither the processing power not the bandwidth necessary for that. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded the 2.3GB version and it is a lot better: File:Market street comparison.jpg. It seems to me to be a bit troubling promoting the current version when they is a substantially better free version easily available for want of transcoding. I think I can transcode and upload it myself but it would take some time. If anyone with more bandwidth, computing power and expertise wants to step into the breach feel free. Wolftick (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolftick: I think you could simply upload over this one. If it is the same film, I don't see an issue with this FP nomination, or the need to keep an old version if we have a better one. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – shot one month before the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cool and high EV. APK whisper in my ear 18:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a much nicer webm version of this based on the high quality version on archive.org. The compression on the current version is really horrible and damaging when viewed in direct comparison (File:Market street comparison.jpg). I was wondering what the policy/practice on uploading large (≈1GB) videos is? Wolftick (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is supported, through the chunked uploads script. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Hafspajen (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A Trip Down Market Street (High Res).webm --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scissors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2015 at 10:03:46 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, high resolution illustration of a standard pair of scissors
Articles in which this image appears: Scissors
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality ok, EV ok. --Tremonist (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Whose standard? This pair seems more modernistic in design, i.e. devoid of surface features, than those one usually encounters. Sca (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which surface features are you looking for? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to think of a way to describe that. Crease, bevel? I think most people know what I mean. Sca (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, never seen a scissors like that, but they aren't in any odd shape either, so I'm fine with that. SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. High quality. I can understand what Sca meant, but this pair of scissors is at least sufficiently simple and typical, compared to other more modern designs (such as asymmetric designs). Therefore, this image has good EV. sst✈^discuss 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hafspajen (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pair of scissors with black handle, 2015-06-07.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Seal of 65th Airborne Special Forces Brigade of I.R.Iran Army

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2015 at 06:57:47 (UTC)

Reason: HQ + EV
Articles in which this image appears: 65th Airborne Special Forces Brigade
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator: MrInfo2012

Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Lacks visual interest. Negligible EV. Sca (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deference between my file [1] and those [2] + [3] ? Alborzagros (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't favor "those" as Main Page FPs either, for the same reasons. Too much like advertising selected military formations, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per Sca. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I don't have an issue with military unit insignias being FPs (as military heraldry is a legitimate - though often incredibly nerdy - field of scholarship), the article provides only partial information on what this insignia depicts and nothing at all on its history or significance. Moreover, the copyright status of this image is dubious as the record on Commons says that it's "Own work and نشان تيپ 65 نوهد نيرو زميني ارتش wisgoon.com. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that line of the Commons page is the only copyright issue the image has, this would not right as it is just added recently, the reference doesn't have any similarity with the uploaded SVG work and the uploader is known to have ability to recreate insignina from groundup, you can see his other works that have multiple versions that roughly can show that he is the creator. −ebrahim^talk 14:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. --Tremonist (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nick-D. Unclear EV. sst✈^discuss 08:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nick-D – Jobas (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated this image for deletion in Commons :)Ladsgroup^overleg 13:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody. I'm the creator of this image. One of my main goals for redesigning low quality military insignia of Iran Army is that there is no HQ image about them in Wiki or elsewhere. Please tell me why you candidate it for deletion? MrInfo2012 Talk 05:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:08, 21 November 2015 (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.

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:

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.
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:

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

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.
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.
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:

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.
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.
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:

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.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
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:

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.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
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}}.
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.
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:

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.
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.
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.

Mary Magdalene

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2015 at 13:55:57 (UTC)

Reason: Good artist, interesting picture.
Articles in which this image appears: Mary Magdalene - lead picture, Domenico Tintoretto,
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Domenico Tintoretto

Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) @Armbrust and Crisco 1492: HELP! This nomination seems to have been removed in error but I don't know if I've managed to add it back properly? And will the dates need to be adjusted? You both know how useless I am so can you fix it, please? [reply]
Support - Jobas (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very grainy, terrible colour reproduction. Compare lack of grain in detail here: File:Domenico tintoretto, maddalena penitente, 1598 ca. 03.JPG (Hohum ^@) 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could be better technically. --Tremonist (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Hohum. – Yann (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original looks like it could be a tweaked version of Alt. I don't think either are good reproductions or up to the standards of similar FPs. Wolftick (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not good enough. Unless someone can come up with a better scan. Pity, it's a nice painting. It depends a bit on the screen you are on. It looked rather good on a small screen. Hafspajen (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK withdraw; unless better scan is suggested. I want to leave it open if someone comes upp with a solution, time is not out yet.Hafspajen (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to leave it open if someone comes upp with a solution, time is not out yet. If no one is suggesting anything else, THAN I withdraw the actuall scans - they are indeed not up to FP standard , but the painting is no doubt gorgeous. Not before. Hafspajen (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A VERY slight chance, of course, but miracles still happen.... sometimes ... here and there... But then it didn't helped that it was removed between 20 November 2015‎ to 23 November 2015, of course. Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury City Tower

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2015 at 05:40:00 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Mercury City Tower, Moscow International Business Center, List of tallest buildings in the world, Eurasian Economic Union
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: A.Savin

Support as nominator – sst✈^discuss 05:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd prefer to see the base too, but this is good enough for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot of the Moscow International Business Center means that any image of the Mercury City Tower with the base would have to include other buildings in the complex. Look at this image to see what I mean. sst✈^discuss 00:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The angle shows the less distinctive flater side of the building and the base is not show (actually over 1/3 of the height of the building including most of the bottom tier is missing). It took the wireframe image in Mercury City Tower and other photos to actually get a feel for the shape and scale of the building. - Wolftick (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I like it, but IMHO the missing base doesn't seem to meet FP standards. APK whisper in my ear 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AgnosticPreachersKid: Which of the WP:WIAFP does this image not meet? sst✈^discuss 05:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." APK whisper in my ear 06:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, any image with the base would have "highly distracting or obstructing elements". sst✈^discuss 08:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous photos of this building that include the base without distracting or obstructing elements (it helps that it's bright orange) and also give a better impression of the shape of the building - Wolftick (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Without base looks airily suspended, and from this vantage point building's lateral depth is hidden, reducing EV. Sca (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting view, but oppose per Wolftick, APK, Sca. I'd be happy if the whole height were shown (should be stitchable from two 17mm shots), although obviously having the broadside angle would be best. Samsara 19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Would've been better with the base. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unsatisfactory composition, to my eye. 86.152.160.43 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but also seems quite grainy in places... gazhiley 11:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look Back in Ingres...

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2015 at 00:57:23 (UTC)

Reason: A terrific scan of a celebrated painting. Despite its already high EV, I held off nominating it here until writing Louise de Broglie, Countess d'Haussonville, a biography long overdue.
Articles in which this image appears: Louise de Broglie, Countess d'Haussonville, Ingres, Frick Collection, Western Painting, Dress, 1840s in Western fashion, Joseph d'Haussonville
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres

Support as nominator – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great painting (seen it many times). Please add the Countess' article at the beginning of the articles in which the image appears (most relevant for EV).--Godot13 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thank you for your support. FP issues aside, the painting in person is luminous and extraordinary, as you surely know. Newsweek pointedly compared the Countess to Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring in an article this past February, expressing relief that the two "poster girls" of their respective museums would not have to fight it out in the same Mauritshuis exhibition room. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, high quality digitization and I love the nomination title. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 09:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great painting.-- Jobas (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support high quality sst✈^discuss 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hafspajen (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres - Comtesse d'Haussonville - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers, as there is no article about the painting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Bellevue at night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2015 at 05:00:18 (UTC)

Reason: Nice nighttime picture of a notable building. A daytime version is already featured. Note that this photo is 1,139 pixels high but I believe that the extra-large width of 3,072 makes the image be of adequate size in terms of megapixel area since 1500x1500 pixels = 2,250,000 pixels, while 1139x3702 pixels = 3,499,008 pixels.
Articles in which this image appears: Bellevue Palace (Germany), Presidential palace
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Avda

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 05:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the maths is correct, I'm afraid this is below minimum spec. Plus the motion blur on the flags is distracting, as is the glare of the lights on the flag poles themselves. There is no detail in the cone-shaped trees lining the edges of the courtyard (again motion blur maybe?) that means they look almost like molded plastic. Also using the horizontal top of the building itself (the bottom of the roof) there seems to be a slight tilt with the left being lower than the right. gazhiley 09:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazhiley: longer exposures are common at night due to the necessity of gathering sufficient light. A side effect of that can be motion blur. In this case I think the tradeoff is reasonable. Regarding the glare, those are probably brightly lit areas that unfortunately are overexposed due to the necessity of getting sufficient exposure on less-exposed areas, and again I think the tradeoff is ok here; I'm not sure how possible it is to do better, although someone with more advanced knowledge of photographic techniques, more time to execute postprocessing effects, and/or perhaps a more expensive camera might be able to do better. --Pine^✉ 20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the technical difficulties, there are sufficient examples on here of night pictures that don't have these issues, and therefore while this is a good picture it isn't among wikipedia's finest sorry... gazhiley 09:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Jobas (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Images are intended to have a minimum measurement in their shorter dimension, not a minimum number of pixels. So this one is still too small. It seems it would be easy for someone to take a better one. Samsara 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this one passes, it's easy enough to replace it with a better one in the future. Regarding the 1500 minimum, I think the large horizontal size is adequate enough reason to IAR as far as the literal interpretation of the 1500 minimum is concerned; the overall impression and informative value of the photo are of higher importance in my view. --Pine^✉ 20:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria is completely unambiguous: 1500*1500 is the bare minimum, with exceptions decided by consensus. Consensus is clearly against ignoring the minimum here. This is not a historical picture, not of a really small subject, and not at a ridiculous aspect ration (think 1:20). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: while you are welcome do disagree with the nomination, I would like to request that you reword your comments. Prior to your vote, there were 2 votes in favor and 2 opposed, which is far from an assessment that "clearly is consensus against" the nomination. "No consensus" and "not yet consensus" are different from "consensus against". So I would like to ask you to rephrase your assessment. Your vote can still stand as opposed. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 00:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now there are three votes against, and one vote for (excluding yours as the nominator, as you are requesting the exception be made). If you want to count yourself, there are two votes for, three against. I fail to see how that is not "clear". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: The nomination may fail, and that's fine. At this point I am more concerned with your definition of the term "consensus", which we are using in different ways. I'll take this discussion to your talk page because it's a separate issue from the image nomination. --Pine^✉ 00:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as per above, below minimum resolution. Mattximus (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, specially for such a big building and a static subject like this. Yann (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per emerging consensus. --Pine^✉ 15:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italian States, Venice, 50 Zecchini (c. 1779–89)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2015 at 06:11:16 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image, high EV, very good condition.

Articles in which this image appears: Sequin (coin), Paolo Renier

FP category for this image: European currency

Creator: Zecca (mint), Republic of Venice (coin)
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History.

Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Excellent ~~ ~~ Alborzagros (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 09:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. sst✈^discuss 05:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Italian States-Venice (1779-89) 50 Zecchini.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cape ground squirrel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2015 at 01:55:05 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image of individuals from this species. Featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Cape ground squirrel +2
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Hans Hillewaert

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good EV and good angle.--Godot13 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ HQ + EV. ~~ ~ Alborzagros (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - EV works well and it's a great capture Atsme^📞📧 02:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 09:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hafspajen (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The squirrel on the left seems really noisy/grainy... gazhiley 11:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I may be biased but the detail on this image may be more suited to FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quality and EV good enough. The suggestion by Charlesjsharp shows the squirrel from a different direction, and both images have their own encyclopedic values. sst✈^discuss 17:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Xerus inauris.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venus with a Mirror

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2015 at 16:09:06 (UTC)

Reason: A Google Art Project file, high quality and real big: rhat file ‎is 13,246 × 15,890 pixels... and the artist is a classic, and well known, it is Titian. The painting is from circa 1555. It has been copied, admired and loved. The painting is hosted by the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, and it is considered to be one of the collection's highlights.
Articles in which this image appears: Venus with a Mirror (own article) + Venus effect, Venus in Furs, Femme au miroir, Rokeby Venus, List of works by Titian, Mirror, Clothing fetish, Venus (mythology)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Titian

Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support high resolution and quality photograph of a painting. sst✈^discuss 17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good EV and wow for the level of image detail.--Godot13 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Magic Mirror, revealing her true age (80-ish)? ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - APK whisper in my ear 09:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A591 road

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2015 at 11:38:25 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image with good EV. We don't get many roads articles. Previous nomination failed, but I think this image has got what it takes.
Articles in which this image appears: A591 road +1
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: David Iliff

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and interesting view of a beautiful region. --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 08:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice composition. Hafspajen (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – One good roadscape deserves another. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its oversaturated. --PetarM (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Agree with PetarM – it glows too much. And to me the composition seems somehow static. Sca (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lovely view. I don't understand what the previous poster means about the composition being "static". If some people have the view that it is over-saturated, can the saturation not be turned down a couple of notches to satisfy those objections and get the picture through? 86.152.160.43 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare bright sunny day in my home-from-home. Beautiful image, and well captured. Yes the brightness may be a tad high, but this only emphasises how sunny a day it is... Nice... gazhiley 11:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Boyar Wedding Feast

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2015 at 16:52:00 (UTC)

Reason: Good scan, iconic painting, by Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915) The Russian artist's most renowned painting. The painting shows a toast, during which the bride and the groom are expected to kiss each other. The bride and the groom are standing at the right. A roosted swan is brought in, on a large platter. The swan is the last dish served, before the couple retires into the bedroom. The bride looks sad and reluctant, while the matchmaker standing behind her encourages the bride to kiss the groom.
Articles in which this image appears: A Boyar Wedding Feast (own article) ^{_{^{^{by Godot and Hafspajen}}}}, Russian wedding traditions, Konstantin Makovsky, Boyar, Wedding reception
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Konstantin Makovsky

Support as co-nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that swan looks like it swam out of Sunrise with Sea Monsters. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nominator – Out of town, but happy to be involved...--Godot13 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and a good deal more will be added to the article next week.--Godot13 (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Yann (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Isn't she demure! But Uncle Ivan's already had too much to drink. Sca (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sst✈^discuss 17:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for all the right reasons. Atsme^📞📧 02:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --PetarM (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:A Boyar Wedding Feast (Konstantin Makovsky, 1883) Google Cultural Institute.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Hauptbahnhof

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2015 at 21:46:54 (UTC)

Reason: Large photo; encyclopedic illustration of a major landmark
Articles in which this image appears: Berlin Hauptbahnhof
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Pine

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 21:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry Pine, glad to see you're contributing your own images, but the lean of the building is an issue for me. Have you tried software to correct the vertical lines? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Chris Woodrich, but also the top of the tower with the DB sign is very soft, almost blurred... gazhiley 11:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective correction would be needed, I agree. --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Chris Woodrich – Jobas (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I don't currently have tools and time for perspective correction so I'm withdrawing this. --Pine^✉ 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms - Pieter Aertsen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2015 at 16:46:01 (UTC)

Reason: A high-quality and high-resolution scan from the Google Art Project that is used in the lead of Pieter Aertsen. This historic painting from 1551 is a vivid depiction of a meat stall, exhibiting meats from this time period, and I feel that the image passes the Featured picture criteria.
Articles in which this image appears: Pieter Aertsen
FP category for this image: Food and drink
Creator: Google Cultural Institute

Support as nominator – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Minimal discussion in the article, and thus low EV; should be enough out there for an article on the painting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good painting. Chris is right, though, EV could be higher, but this can be improved. --Tremonist (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Chris. This complex painting is like a Saab – it requires an explanation. Sca (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per User:Crisco 1492. Not even a single mention in the article means it has minimal EV. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per User:Crisco 1492 – Jobas (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. High quality, but please, write an article about this painting. sst✈^discuss 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn – Per oppose comments above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Stone House New World Dutch barn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2015 at 01:42:10 (UTC)

Reason: High Resolution and Quality. Assessed as Quality image at Commons. 2,388 × 1,552 pixel photograph by Daniel Case. This is an image of a place or building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the United States of America. Main photograph at Dutch barn and 2nd photograph at Bull Stone House.
Articles in which this image appears: Dutch barn, Bull Stone House
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Daniel Case

Support as nominator – — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bush in the bottom left side of the photo is distracting. It covers most of the left wall. Otherwise, wonderful photograph. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Étienne Dolet. – Yann (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Detail isn't great at full res. A closer, clearer shot, with less framing foliage, would better show the weathered-wood texture. Sca (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per SCA. Very little detail at full scale. (Nice composition otherwise). P. S. Burton (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know how other people interpret "more or less unaltered", but at Dutch barn it says "This barn has the oldest known barn timbers in its core dated to 1726 but the roof structure, side aisles and exterior are not original." This hardly sounds "unaltered" to me. 86.152.160.43 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --sst✈^discuss 02:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2015 at 07:01:33 (UTC)

Reason: Nice illustration of the season; large photo
Articles in which this image appears: Autumn
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: XRay, color balanced by Sting

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 07:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Support Oh thank god, someone else who remembers that we have month called November and a season known as autumn. The older I get the more it seems like these facts are lost on most of the rest of the world... TomStar81 (Talk) 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Pleasant tableau, decent comp, but detail at full res isn't great, and to my mind a sunny pic of 'golden autumn' would be a better representation of what the Germans call Herbststimmung. Sca (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Essentially per TomStar81, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but I agree with Sca. APK whisper in my ear 03:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per APK, Sca. Good pictures need good light, and this is perfectly legitimate. Authenticity is not obtained by seeking drab light. Samsara 19:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lighting is typical for autumn, so I think the lighting is a benefit rather than a detraction for the encyclopedic value of this photo. --Pine^✉ 21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2014 -- 3808 color balanced.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious Armbrust, I thought it had to be a 2/3rd consensus to pass? This isn't 2/3... It would need another support to be passed surely? Not trying to nit-pick or be fussy, just checking my understanding of the guidelines... gazhiley 12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination has 5 supports and 2 opposes, and that's makes a 71.4% for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah yes - it's my maths that is the issue... I divided the figures against each other, rather than against the total nominations - slight blonde moment there... Thank you for that Armbrust gazhiley 14:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Steam Shovel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2015 at 02:37:50 (UTC)

Reason: High Resolution and Quality. Assessed as Quality image on Commons. Original photograph by Daniel Case. High Encyclopedic Value as main image at article -- Marion Steam Shovel (Le Roy, New York).
Articles in which this image appears: Marion Steam Shovel (Le Roy, New York), Marion Power Shovel Company, National Register of Historic Places listings in Genesee County, New York
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery
Creator: Daniel Case

Support as nominator – — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Again, great shot at thumbnail size, but the noise.... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris – Jobas (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Rays film (1987)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2015 at 10:25:22 (UTC)

Original – The X-Rays is a 44-seconds 1897 British short silent comedy film, directed by George Albert Smith, featuring a courting couple exposed to X-rays. The trick film, according to Michael Brooke of BFI Screenonline, "contains one of the first British examples of special effects created by means of jump cuts Smith employs the jump-cut twice; first to transform his courting couple via "X rays," dramatized by means of the actors donning black bodysuits decorated with skeletons, and then to return them to normal. The couple in question are played by Smith's wife Laura Bayley and Tom Green (a Brighton comedian).

Reason: EV
Articles in which this image appears: The X-Rays
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator: George Albert Smith

Support as nominator – Alborzagros (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find, there are few movies older than this, so we can overlook the quality issues... ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:01, 2 November 2015

Actually not, the quality of this British Film Institute upload is much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMCkFRMJQQ Also note that the nonimated film is severely cropped on the right side, thus, Oppose. --Janke | Talk 11:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I watched video in youtube but didn't notice any differences. Alborzagros (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice how the right side is cut off - probably in order to hide the BFI logo... Did you do that? --Janke | Talk 19:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note - Direct link [4] of video in commons. Alborzagros (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Speedy Close due to the cutting of the BFI logo! --Janke | Talk 19:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question what is a BFI logo? Alborzagros (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above, but I'll spell it out: BFI = British Film Institute. Logo = their watermark at top right in the original, which is cut off in your upload. Get it? ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Janke. --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this is not in the public domain in the UK, so the file should be moved locally. Yann (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke - Jobas (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Pisces at Ocean Terminal, Hong Kong

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2015 at 03:59:28 (UTC)

Reason: High Resolution and Quality. Assessed as Quality image on Commons. 3,964 × 2,652 pixels, file size: 6.03 MB. High quality photograph by Daniel Case. High Encyclopedic Value as main image in use for article -- Star Pisces.
Articles in which this image appears: Star Pisces, Star Cruises, Wärtsilä Marine
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Daniel Case

Support as nominator – — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What am I looking at? Why is it grainy? At 80 ISO there shouldn't be any noise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and excessive compression artifacts. --Janke | Talk 08:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per others. --Tremonist (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. EV not high enough to make up for the low quality. sst✈^discuss 17:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Jobas (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South African Republic, Burgerspond (1874)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 21:33:03 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image, high EV, very good condition, scarce to rare

Articles in which this image appears: Thomas François Burgers, Coins of the South African pound

FP category for this image: Other currency

Creator: Heaton Mint (Birmingham), for the South African Republic (coin)
From the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History.

Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support you could further identify the coin as of the "fine beard" type Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on EV, certainly, and quality. — Cirt (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I'll have to add a few of these to my huge pile of Krugerrands. Sca (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 03:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:South Africa 1874 One Pond.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kritonios Crown

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 19:28:56 (UTC)

Reason: Details are sharp enough, high EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Kritonios Crown, Gold, Crown (headgear)
FP category for this image: History/Others perhaps
Creator: MatthiasKabel

Support as nominator – Brandmeister^talk 19:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is quite poor: top is overexposed, bottom is underexposed. Yann (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I like the contrast, and it's quite high resolution and quality. — Cirt (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. I recently saw this item in Munich, and I suspect that the photo was taken of it in its rather under-whelming display case. The photo is certainly very useful, but I don't think it's an example of our best work. Nick-D (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. sst✈^discuss 05:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Jobas (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 09:37:55 (UTC)

Reason: Here's one of those famous portrait images that ends up being reproduced over the years; the person in question is one, Nikola Tesla, whom I have the utmost respect and admiration for. This particular photograph has been used in various mediums for quotes from the scientist or for images of Tesla and his inventions. While this is not at the minimum size for FPC I'd ask for a degree of leniency here as Tesla is dead and we can't reproduce the photo without him. I've searched and found larger images on Google, but none just of him like this. Having said that, if someone finds a larger image like this one as an alt then I'd be all for support that one.
Articles in which this image appears: History of electromagnetic theory Invention of radio Nikola Tesla Serbia Serbian American Serbs There, Far Away War of Currents Yugoslav American
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
Creator: Unknown, sadly

Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 09:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems to be a scan from a book rather than an original, but, in any case, the sourcing strikes me as inadequate for FP purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @J Milburn: for the sake of clarification, may I assume that by sourcing you mean the person who actually took the photo and the date, or were you referring to something else? Sourcing I may be able to figure out, but if its technical in nature then it would be beyond my capability to address. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes- original photographer/publication would be valuable, but, in addition, as this is a scan from a book (correct me if I'm wrong) it'd be good to identify the book. I think my oppose would stand, though. I've certainly got no objection to featuring a version of this photo in principle, but this version is not FP-worthy. (There also seems to be a moderate amount of undocumented modification.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small, scanning and/or compression artifacts, way too contrasty. --Janke | Talk 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems frequently FPCs below minimum size are asked to be accepted because they cannot be reproduced due to the subject of the photo being dead or no longer existing. In fact it is the digitisation of the original photo that is being put forward, not the photo itself. As long as the original still exists I see no reason low resolution should be accepted any more than it would be in a scan of a painting for example. Wolftick (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Too little contrast at hair. --Tremonist (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[5] is pretty good. Would need a restoration, but it avoids the contrast issues. More staged of a pose, but..... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a variant of that one is already featured at Commons, but I'm too lazy to check. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Jobas (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sisters On Exibit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 09:27:34 (UTC)

Reason: Prostitutes on display in Yoshiwara during the Edo Period, Japan. This particlar kind of photo was sometimes captioned "The Sisters on Exhibit". The image itself is a silver print, and given what I know about Japan at this particular period in time I would venture a guess that this was probably an establishment in a designated red light district, although I could be mistaken about that. This is a little under the current the current size requirements, but I'd ask for a degree of leniency here as this image comes from a red light district in the Edo Period, well before our time.
Articles in which this image appears: Prostitution, Yoshiwara
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: possibly by Kusakabe Kimbei (日下部金幣) (1841 - 1934)

Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 09:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical, although somewhat below minimum resolution. Could be D&R-ed once higher resolution emerges. Brandmeister^talk 19:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on quality and EV. But could we get a date? Or at least a circa date, with some research, perhaps, to add to the image page? — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Label should be elsewhere, not on the image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a border to the bottom and move the label there, then upload an alternate. It might be an improvement. Bammesk (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be on the image. Read commons:Commons:Watermarks. If it were original to the photograph, fine, but it isn't. It's a subsequent addition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just EV. --Tremonist (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Wolftick's comments regarding image size in the above Tesla discussion would also apply here. To quote, "It seems frequently FPCs below minimum size are asked to be accepted because they cannot be reproduced due to the subject of the photo being dead or no longer existing. In fact it is the digitisation of the original photo that is being put forward, not the photo itself. As long as the original still exists I see no reason low resolution should be accepted any more than it would be in a scan of a painting for example." --Paul_012 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, the source for the current file version isn't noted. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Fails basic criteria so upports should be ignored The image is still for sale so it would be trivial (if moderately expensive) to get a better copy. "I don't want to pay" simply isn't a reason to promote a low-quality copy. Even without paying, Better copies of such images certainly do exist. Indeed, even an uncoloured copy of this exists at high-res. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that when I put an image here its as an observer, not a critic. To me, a neat picture is a neat picture, to you and a handful of others here a picture is an impressive collection of pixels and digital coding designed to create all manner of colors and depths. The difference between us then with regards to the criteria for what should be a featured picture is rather like the difference between a life boat and star-ship - you go where I can for the most part only dream of going, while I am happy just to be be able to float with the best/rest of you. (P.S. :You're missing an "s" for your "upports" :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Crisco 1492 and Adam Cuerden. Kaldari (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This photo was not taken in the Edo Period, it's a Meiji period... So, I think this photo doesn't represent Edo period style of Yoshiwara. --Laitche (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Willing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 05:28:31 (UTC)

Reason: Good portrait of a notable politician and banker
Articles in which this image appears: Thomas Willing
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Charles Willson Peale

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High resolution, high quality, most definitely High Encyclopedic Value. Great contribution from Crisco 1492, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice scan, typical good historic portrait by Peale. Who is the woman in his hand? (in the medal) Hafspajen (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good EV, by an historical artist. Now I'm going to have to find out if he signed banknotes...--Godot13 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Charles Willson Peale - Portrait of Thomas Willing.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling bracket detail at chapel, Greenwich Hospital, London

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2015 at 03:50:05 (UTC)

Reason: High Resolution and Quality. Commons determined as Quality Image. 5,460 × 2,556 pixels, file size: 10.44 MB. Best resolution and quality image for English Wikipedia article, Bracket (architecture). Free-use licensed photograph by Daniel Case.
Articles in which this image appears: Bracket (architecture)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Daniel Case

Support as nominator – Cirt (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - striking detail and clarity. Atsme^📞📧 02:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PetarM (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ceiling bracket detail at chapel, Greenwich Hospital, London.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tirth Pat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2015 at 11:34:05 (UTC)

Reason: High technical standard, resolution, free license (own work), verifiable and only picture of its kind on Wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears: Tirth Pat + 1
FP category for this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jain_art
Creator: AKS.9955

Support as nominator – Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality and poor sharpness. ~~ ~~ Alborzagros (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alborzagros. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alborzagros. APK whisper in my ear 09:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks for your work, but this is nowhere near FP quality. sst✈^discuss 05:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alborzagros – Jobas (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I withdraw my nomination and thank everyone for their time. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --sst✈^discuss 00:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. sst✈^discuss 00:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Puja

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2015 at 11:58:08 (UTC)

Reason: High technical standard, resolution, free license (own work) and verifiable
Articles in which this image appears: Durga Puja
FP category for this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Durga_Puja
Creator: AKS.9955

Support as nominator – Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not agreeable and lighting is awful. ~~ ~~ Alborzagros (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Alborzagros. APK whisper in my ear 09:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alborzagros – Jobas (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I withdraw my nomination and thank everyone for their time. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --sst✈^discuss 00:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. sst✈^discuss 00:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean reef squid (Sepioteuthis sepioidea)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2015 at 13:14:23 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, unique capture of a Caribbean reef squid flashing colors while hovering in its natural underwater environment
Articles in which this image appears: Caribbean reef squid
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs
Creator: Atsme

Support as nominator – Atsme^📞📧 13:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any chance of uploading a jpg version? --Godot13 (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely! In process now. Atsme^📞📧 20:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPG - I think it has been a bit too aggressively denoised, but it looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Crisco 1492: this image is also a Commons FP candidate where I was asked to "denoise" the bokeh effect and convert the .tif file to .jpg. I will admit, denoising was an improvement, but I tend to agree with you in that I probably could have left a little more noise, although bokeh is supposed to create a soft out-of-focus background. As far as article use, it is a definite improvement in that the subject is far more striking than it was pre-denoising. Also, consensus seems to prefer the lossier .jpg format over the lossless .tif but either way, I'm happy to oblige. What I hope reviewers will consider is the fact that the ocean doesn't take too kindly to still photography, particularly at 40+ ft. depths in a 1 to 2 knot current (anything higher and you're asking for miracles). Bracketing doesn't work because, for the most part, nothing is completely stationary underwater, so forget optimal HDR in the field. White balance is also a challenge and depth of field is nothing short of a miracle when shooting macro. You're underwater wearing fins for feet with a bulky air tank strapped to your back, and you're looking through the confines of an underwater mask. Underwater, everything appears to be 25%-33% closer than it actually is, and at 35 ft., you've lost most of the color spectrum so you can forget red and green alert indicators. At that point, it no longer matters how many hours are left in a day or the position of the sun when it sets; what matters most is how much air you have left in your scuba tank and to what degree you trust your "grip" who is supposed to be watching your gauges while you work, provided you even have a grip. Did I mention the trials and tribulations of backscatter, critters that are frightened of your exhaust bubbles, curious (possibly hungry) sharks, fire coral, evasive scorpion fish, and irate damselfish? Oh, and don't dare touch the coral, which means if you can't maintain neutral buoyancy and morph into a hovering tripod capable of steadying that bulky underwater housing and attached strobes, leave the macro gear at home. 😊 Atsme^📞📧 01:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note on the format: JPGs are better supported by Wikimedia software than PNGs, and thus why this form tends to prefer them (compare thumbnails of JPGs and PNGs). If the WMF were to ever fix the issue, there'd probably be less support for JPGs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for alternate, original has my Support as well. Great contribution from Atsme, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG version – Yann (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG version – I will always support a Caribbean reef squid :) Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG - I think it is a great shot and hard to do. My only reservation (not enough of one to effect support) is the halo that appears at full size when the image is scrolled across the screen. Assuming that this is not just my screen, I don't think anyone is going to trying to make a still image move. Given the difficulty in accomplishing a shot like this, well done.--Godot13 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG --Tremonist (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG version, works better with Wikipedia. sst✈^discuss 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG - APK whisper in my ear 08:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Much as the "regulars" know how much I admire their photography, it's nice to see such a great photograph from a Wikipedian who I don't think I have encountered before! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPEG version --PetarM (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Squid colors 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point Vicente Light

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2015 at 06:30:19 (UTC)

Reason: High Resolution and Quality. Identified and successfully nominated to Featured Picture on Commons by Daniel Case. Both Featured Picture and Quality Image on Commons. High Encyclopedic Value as main image for the article -- Point Vicente Light.
Articles in which this image appears: Point Vicente Light
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Mike Quach

Support as nominator – — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Shouldn't this nom be titled Point Vicente Lighthouse? This 2012 pic was added to Point Vicente Light in January 2013. Sca (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the first person to nominate this here; I am still a little surrpised it didn't pass that time. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Very nice (leaning to support). Lighthouse tower is vertical, but the far shoreline is not straight (slightly clockwise) and it makes the tower appear tilted. Bammesk (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I could live there. Atsme^📞📧 22:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I will always support a lighthouse image. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? (shown here) Sca (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not display completely different images in a Featured Picture Nomination subpage, unless they are a slightly modified ALT version of exact same photograph. This appears to be a completely different photograph, which could instead be displayed on its own separate and unique Featured Picture Nomination subpage. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - APK whisper in my ear 08:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Parlos Verdes Light House Aug 2012.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Paul Rubens - Abundance

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2015 at 14:57:12 (UTC)

Reason: Good scan, from the Google Art Project. A study in oil, or by Rubens, a preparation sketch for a tapestry - that was not intended as a finished work, but a preliminary exploration of a theme, and not as a finished piece ; created for an allegory or a symbol of "Abundance", by Peter Paul Rubens. The bruswork is very interesting and typical for the artist. Also it is a sketch, we don't have many of those.

Articles in which this image appears: Abundantia, Cornucopia

FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others

Creator: Peter Paul Rubens

Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quite high resolution and quality, quite encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautiful Atsme^📞📧 22:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Jobas (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Peter Paul Rubens - Abundance (Abundantia) - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended nominations

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

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/1933 $20 Saint-Gaudens double eagle}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bowman Creek‎}}
-{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:TINTORETTO - Magdalena penitente (Musei Capitolini, Roma, 1598-1602) - copia.jpg}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Operation Greenhouse blast}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green hairstreak (Callophrys rubi) 3.jpg}}
@@ Line 51: / Line 50: @@
 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.
 <!-- ↓ Under this line, please (newest at the top) ↓ -->
+{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:TINTORETTO - Magdalena penitente (Musei Capitolini, Roma, 1598-1602) - copia.jpg}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mercury City Tower}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Louise de Broglie, Countess d'Haussonville}}