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).
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.
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.
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 22:48:04 (UTC)
Original – A Hen Harlequin relaxes on a large rock at the Barnegat Inlet in Ocean County, NJ.
Reason
I was very close to this bird, with excellent lighting, a shutter speed that was overkill, a reasonably low ISO and a focal length less than the maximum for my lens (360mm / 400mm.) As a result this image is tack sharp with low noise and captures a single hen harlequin in a natural setting with no distraction. The feather detail is, in my opinion, exquisite. This image is 7600 px wide.
Comment – The chest is a bit fuzzy, could have been better with a wider DOF (f/8), but the high resolution somewhat makes up for it though. FP criterion 5 suggests waiting 7+ days once the image is added to the article. Bammesk (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clumsily added to article 2 March, so not eligible for FP. User has inflated view of his photographic abilities. It is not exquisite and not tack sharp over much of the image due to poorly-chosen camera settings. Low EV as legs not visible. White feathers blown. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being a little unfair, Charles, there's a lot to like about this. The newness is the big issue here, but the feathers are well defined. Angle, in my opinion, is the biggest issue: too much of the duck is tucked in behind itself, but we've certainly passed worse than this. Even if we're not going to pass this one, I'd like to see more in this line, and roasting the new contributor is not going to help with that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok. I was bragging based on comparing it to my other work. I was just beaming when I saw the end result. I appreciate the apology and I apologize for prematurely submitting it for review. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'm not sure this is the ideal operation for suture as a whole, it's a compelling, visceral image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry, but Janke is right. Bring this back in a month or two? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs11:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I've submitted anything here, and I missed the relevant part of criterion 5. Happy to withdraw this and resubmit in a couple months. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this shows the act of suturing very well, so it has good EV (encyclopedic value), but it was shot with an iPhone and isn't very sharp at full size. It could be sharper with a stand-alone camera. Bammesk (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 22:41:15 (UTC)
Original – Cabinet card of Sojourner Truth, which she sold to raise money to support herself and continue her work. Purchased in 1870 from a photograph copyrighted to her in 1864.
Reason
While I kind of agree with the other photo being the lead, Sojourner Truth sold photographs of herself to support her work, and this is the only one in the article that shows that. It's also really not an article we have a lot of photographs for.
Fun fact: This is the same image used on most of the extant carte-de-visites of her, but in a much more generous crop and higher quality since it's a cabinet card. Which presumably means she had the negatives, since there weren't cabinet cards in 1864. Compare commons:Category:Sojourner Truth
Quality lead image. This intercept and strike aircraft has been a work horse in the UK, German and Italian air forces since 1979. This image is of the GR4 variant introduced in 1996.
I'd imagine it's the choice between distortion and crop for things like this where there's a limited distance you can back up. I'm happy to Support. Not as sharp as some of his, but strong. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2022 at 15:59:17 (UTC)
Original – Index to the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India (1922). Open for higher quality.
Reason
Index to the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India (1922). The survey had great scientific and popular accomplishments, namely being one of the first accurate measurements of a section of a longitude's arc, other measurements that led to the development of the theory of isostasy, and the measurements of the height of the Everest, K2, and Kanchenjunga (3 of the highest mountains in the world). FP on Commons.
Support. High-quality scan, encyclopedic information, appropriate lead image for a notable subject. The opposition above enunciates clearly my reason for cutting back my participation in the FPC process: too many participants care only about pretty pictures of charismatic megafauna and postcard landscapes, pushing out the encyclopedic but non-photogenic images. If you want that, go to Commons; they have their own FPC whose rules don't focus as much on encyclopedic content. This sort of image is exactly the sort of thing we should be including here, to differentiate Wikipedia FPC from commons (or would, except that commons actually passed this image already). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure what "readily accessible visual information" the picture is lacking; I mean, it's obviously a map of India. Photogenicity is in the eye of the beholder (e.g., people really into cartography might like a wall poster of this); more importantly for our purposes, its encyclopedic merits are clear. XOR'easter (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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 August archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
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.
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2022 at 05:04:39 (UTC)
Original – Henry Highland Garnet was an African-American abolitionist, minister, educator and orator. Having escaped as a child from slavery in Maryland with his family, he grew up in New York City. He was educated at the African Free School and other institutions, and became an advocate of militant abolitionism. He became a minister and based his drive for abolitionism in religion. Garnet was a prominent member of the movement that led beyond moral suasion toward more political action. Renowned for his skills as a public speaker, he urged black Americans to take action and claim their own destinies.
Reason
For 1881, this is a damn good image, especially printed. I can certainly point at much worse from the time. Lots of shine on the head, but, well, as I said, it's from about 1881 and he died a year later, so... Mount was very plain and the border was absolutely hideous - messy background - so I didn't think it worth trying to get it in the image.
The source link doesn't work, which happens, unfortunately. But I do suspect a bit of research will get us a higher resolution copy, for what that's worth. Compositionally, a bit of a mess, but I'm inclined to forgive that as "chaotic picture of a chaotic event" Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs22:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think the photo is perfect - it looks to me like his head moved very slightly - it's also a fairly iconic image of him, compare, say, [2], and his grave here, or this set of exhibition photos. I think the historic merit, the quality, and the paucity of images of him excuses some things. I'm also not entirely sure the issues aren't just down to him being African-American: I could totally see "darker skin, so longer exposure so the facial details come out".
Holy shit, Charles. I get on kinda still half asleep because my sleep's broken right now, I scroll down, giant photo of scary spider. It's an amazing photo, so have a support, but that was a bit of a shock. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs11:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The pose seems odd, but the photo's fantastic. Would you say this pose is relatively normal for the species? Because that's really my only hangup here. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs11:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this position would be typical. For most interesting frog photos the animal has been disturbed unfortunately (as I think it was hear, but don't remember). Same applies here; this guy moved after he was disturbed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'll at least Weak support and think about it. It's such a great photo except the weird pose. 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Support The odd pose will attract viewers to lookup the Wikipedia article, one of the criteria for FP. They have sticky toe pads that aid clinging as demonstrated by this image. --Tagooty (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the most important western film ever made, that has had a long-lasting impact since it's initial release. This copy is also a great quality copy of this film.
Support – it could be sharper, but the wow factor makes up for it. The side birds look smaller. Are they juveniles? Is this a family photo?! Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I see Charles' point - it's rather wasted in the article - but the article doesn't seem so stuffed with images that a few angles of the bird isn't useful. I'm glad this one identifies subspecies. If only the bloody infobox image did the same. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs11:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically correct to omit the ssp for the nominate species like this one. I now put in the ssp even for nominate ssp as it makes it easier for my file naming and for VI here. As a side comment, most bird watchers do not worry about ssp when doing their tick lists and claiming 'lifers'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. Hm. The advantage of this is the variety of angles and behaviours, the big disadvantage is that, at thumbnail,none of that comes out very well. It's almost an image better as an FP than in the article. I'd support it on commons, think I need to think a little more here. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs20:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is from the back, mind. You'd have to actively walk away from most of the stuff on Calton Hill to see that side of it,whereas the proposed image is the front side that it was "intended" to be seen from. I'd say your proposal is the better photo, though it is the same rough angle as the view from Salisbury Crags, the next photo in the article after the infobox, which I'm guessing is the reason it doesn't appear Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs17:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Well, it is rather dark, and I'm not sure the presence of the "tourists" and their photographer is appropriate in terms of EV. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While I'm fine with the angle, this monument moves in and out of shadow throughout the day, and this was arguably a bad time. One person would be useful to scale, I don't think we needed a massive unidentified group. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs00:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2022 at 14:40:31 (UTC)
Original – The Recreation Yard was the yard used by inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary between 1934 and 1963. It is located adjacent to the Dining Hall northwest of the end of D-Block on a raised level surrounded by a high wall and fence above it.
Support – Thank you very much for the nomination, Tomer T. I would like to mention that I chose the low point of view intentionally to make the seagull more central. The bird and the yard have an important role in this picture. The seagull is a metaphorical symbol for the lostness of the prisoners, but it can fly away at any time, what the inmates could do only in their dreams. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume it is copyright free? The fact that it isn't anywhere else would support the probability that this is a high quality publicity photo, wouldn't it? Who is the photographer?Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would it not being anywhere else support support that this is a copyrighted photo? Surely such an image would be easy to locate on the safari business' website. In any case, since you asked, the uploader had claimed it as their own work. However, I'm afraid you may ultimately be correct, as a little more digging unearthed more photos uploaded by that user undoubtably not belonging to them. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with Charles about the copyright. The source webpage has a copyright tag at the bottom. The nom composition isn't posted at the source link, a similar composition is posted there. Bammesk (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 15:43:10 (UTC)
Original – A full disk view of planet Earth. Taken on December 7, 1972.
Reason
Properly color-calibrated version of widely known NASA photo AS17-148-22727 (a.k.a., The Blue Marble). Scanned by Johnson Space Center/Arizona State University.
Should we? I think sometimes iconic photos can be ruined by changing them for accuracy. In this case, it was colour corrected fifty years later based on a different photograph in different lighting. I'm not entirely sure of the methodolog, given we have to ask how much any photo can exactly reflect the human eye. There's no one right answer as to exposure. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs17:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – FWIW the film frames are at this link. The nominated frame/capture AS17-148-22727 is here. Two frames earlier is the AS17-148-22725 here and it's different. The end frame of the '148' magazine (presumably the color calibration) is here. For comparison, we have this. Bammesk (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The large resolution .PNGs are already color-processed by ASU and are, in fact, copyrighted by the university. The copyright-free 1.2 GB raw file is where you want to start if you want to color-calibrate it yourself. The original pic is quite dark and how you interpret the gamma will greatly affect the look when correcting exposure. BTW: nice photo from the ISS Cupola you got there! The blues in the ocean look remarkably similar to the blues in this photo. Aaron1a12 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like holding others to my own standards, but there's a lot of marks visible on the lower text area even at the file page preview size, and the bottom.edge has a lot of discoloration even at thumbnail. It's a halftone poster (which is fine), and I don't think every speck needs fixed on halftone, but the macro damage seems more of a problem. Unless you genuinely think that's intentional. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs15:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2022 at 03:18:42 (UTC)
Original – Comparison of elevations of some notable bridges at the same scale
Reason
Photos of famous bridges do not adequately show how large they are compared to one another. This SVG shows them all at the same scale, and lets the viewer highlight them interactively. Additionally, the Çanakkale 1915 Bridge, the first bridge in 20+ years to become the world's longest span, is planned to open on 2022-02-26,ref and I think it appropriate to mark the occasion.
Oppose – Agree with previous unsigned post. What a jumble (jungle?) this chart is. Also, it appears only at the bottom of the main target article, strangely, under 'Notes.' – Sca (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The W?F doesn't help here, the SVG and its interactivity when used in articles is lost thanks to MediaWiki. MER-C19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Çanakkale bridge is 105 ft longer (per its article) than the Akashi bridge. In the "detached version", at full screen size, it extends much past 105 ft? Never mind, see below. (105ft is the tower to tower difference) Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got the profiles from [3] and [4], respectively. The engineering drawings show that the spans are measured from the towers' centrelines. The much wider base above water of the Akashi bridge makes it look like it has a significantly smaller span if one assumes that the span is measured from the inner part of the piers. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmglee, I checked the Çanakkale bridge on google maps: it extends about 3000 ft to the left of the west tower and 4000 ft to the right of the east tower. Looking at the SVG file at full screen size on my browser, the Çanakkale bridge extends more than 3000/4000 ft !? Although, looking at Google Earth, maybe I am looking at it wrong.Bammesk (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmglee, looking at the link you gave above: This link, Çanakkale extends 770+680=1450 meters to the right of the east tower. On your SVG file (detached version) it extends 1600 meters to the right of the east tower. I did more checking and all else everything looks Ok now. Nice and informative drawings. Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmglee, never mind, I struck everything above that confused me. Your drawing has slightly wider grids on the left half, because of the meters to feet conversion, and that threw me off. All is good, everything matches: your sources, your SVG file, google maps all match. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I support both versions, the 'original' and the 'detached'. Bammesk (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment. I saw this at the science reference desk[6] and, on coming here, was taken aback by the superimposed version at the top. However, the "detached" version is much better and, I find, highly encyclopedic. In the detached version the highlighting is not really necessary and, indeed, is a bit of a distraction. Take this as support for detached or ignore my comment, however you wish. Thincat (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram isn't meant to show the entire Çanakkale and Akashi bridges as they are so long that the smaller ones would be lost. They show just enough of the main spans to compare their lengths. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ23:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I click through all the way to the full SVG, it's incredibly good. I'm just not sure Wikipedia handles it well enough. 18:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 22:02:15 (UTC)
Original – The 51 roadways in Washington, D.C. that are named after States or TerritoriesAlt 1 – The 51 roadways in Washington, D.C. that are named after States or Territories
That is just the way the DC road network works. The state avenues have a bad habit of randomly starting and stopping. Maryland Avenue is 8 non-contiguous pieces GuerilleroParlez Moi21:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just my opinion (it's very subjective): The area outside D.C. is bright, and it pops like an unfinished canvas. How about de-emphasizing it by using a milder tone there. Maybe c6c5c3, abb2ab, a4aaa4, etc. or anything to make the D.C. area pop over the surroundings. Bammesk (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the streets are less than half a kilometer in length. There isn't a way to label them short of increasing the size another time; we are already at 5k pixels a side. Opposes need to be actionable --GuerilleroParlez Moi14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 20:06:00 (UTC)
Original – Edmonia Lewis, or "Wildfire" to give her Ojibwe name, was a sculptor of the Neoclassical school, internationally popular for a time before Neoclassical art fell out of favour, now being rediscovered
Reason
While the age - 1870 - is somewhat going against the image quality: The original negatives, if they exist, tend to be far, far better than actual prints can be from that age - I think the quality of the image shines through. We also get a really good look, on her left-hand side (right as you're looking at it) at an example of one of the devices meant to help the sitter stay still long enough for the lengthy exposure cameras of the period needed. It's a very nice photograph of a notable person. One could argue as to whether this was intended to be cropped; if you want an alt, we can consider File:Edmonia Lewis by Henry Rocher (cropped).jpg
Support – Not the world's greatest pic., but after all it's c. 1870. (Could be cropped a bit from top.) Fascinating and comprehensive bio article of a very interesting person most of us never have heard of. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.
_on_dwarf_poinciana_(Caesalpinia_pulcherrima_f._rosea).jpg)
.jpg)
_12-01-2022._(d.j.b).jpg)
_-_restoration1.jpg)
(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
_male_with_leaf.jpg)
_5.jpg)
,_Pistol_Bay,_Pafos,_Chipre,_2021-12-12,_DD_12.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_restoration1.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Presidential_portrait_of_Thomas_Jefferson_(by_Rembrandt_Peale,_1800).jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-030-59169-4_4/MediaObjects/495815_1_En_4_Fig3_HTML.png){kind=link}
![[4]](http://engineeringcivil.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Akashi-Kaikyo-bridge-2.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}