Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.121.180.74 (talk) at 02:17, 5 November 2011 (→‎Current nominations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

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

Promoting an image

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

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

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

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

Delisting an image

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

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

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.
Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

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

How to comment for Delist Images

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

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate.

Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.

Current nominations

FPCs needing feedback


Cepaea nemoralis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2012 at 00:17:07 (UTC)

Original – Cepea nemoralis is a species of land snail from Europe that has also been introduced to North America.
Edit 1 CA reduction.
Reason
A while ago I took a picture of a white-lipped snail, and as I was browsing Wikipedia today I noticed my old snail picture was being used on the banner. Cool! Anyway, that reminded me to upload this one, which I took last year. I think the picture might be a little oversharpened, but I have a pretty bad monitor right now, and when I was shooping to stack a few shots I wasn't sure if it was too much or too little....
Articles in which this image appears
Grove snail
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs
Creator
Mad Max
  • I don't think we'd want the background to be much sharper, and I don't think the composition is worth changing either. I'm also not aware that there are any diagnostic features on the top of the hind end of the foot. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Grace Kelly publicity still

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2011 at 14:29:20 (UTC)

Reason
Gorgeous shot, outstandingly posed and composed. And the digitization of this 55-year-old picture appears virtually flawless.
Articles in which this image appears
Grace Kelly
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty
Creator
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, digitized by http://www.doctormacro.com/
  • Support as nominator --Powers T 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't believe that this is a true digitization of the picture without any post work done. It seems to me like it's been run through photoshop since. If someone can show more evidence that this hasn't happened i will reconsider but i couldn't support as i strongly suspect that this is the case. JFitch (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. It's a really nice picture (lighting, composition, etc), and I'll AGF on all that copyright explanation. However either through airbrushing of the original image, Photoshopping of the digitised version, or simply loss of detail through excessive downsampling (190 KB is small for that resolution) we seem to be missing something, in particular the skin is far too smooth, lacking almost any texture. --jjron (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JFitch - we have another image of Grace Kelly with a far more natural look than this, which would indeed suggest this has been through some processing at some point. Other images online support this. Nikthestoned 11:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose -- I'm somewhat iffy on the copyright explanation. If it needs more references than 40% of the articles here, we're on thin ground. If both this and the image suggested by Nik are PD, why not suggest the other too? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the uploader chose to include such a detailed explanation doesn't mean it was necessary. The fact that it was a publicity still and the copyright was unrenewed is sufficient. I didn't put the other one up for FPC because this one is used in the article, and I feel it's a better-looking shot, at least in thumbnail. Powers T 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing that much EV here, actually. This is a publicity shot for a movie, which means it's essentially in character, not a portrait of Her Future Serene Highness as a person. In addition, I don't really like the picture. It does indeed look heavily airbrushed to me; that was common in this kind of shot, so not out of place in, say, an article about publicity shots, but again I think it detracts from the image as a portrait. Chick Bowen 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Patrouille de France

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2011 at 14:18:54 (UTC)

Original – The Patrouille de France in flight in full formation during the 2011 Radom Air Show. Leading the team is Commandant Cédric Tranchon.
Reason
This is a high quality picture of the entire Patrouille de France formation (the fact that all the jets are present adds to the EV significantly), showing the splendid precision of the pilots and alignment of the planes, which would not be possible in a picture taken from the side.
Articles in which this image appears
Patrouille de France
FP category for this image
Vehicles/Air
Creator
Łukasz Golowanow

Promoted File:Patrouille de France Radom 3 1.JPG --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Colonial anemone redux

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2011 at 13:12:59 (UTC)

Original – A group of anemones in the Amphianthus genre
ALT – Lower saturation
Reason
Striking image and fairly sharp for an underwater image. The previous nomination was withdrawn after it was revealed that the species was wrong; this has since been fixed.
Articles in which this image appears
Amphianthus
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Cnidaria
Creator
User:Nhobgood
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As when nominated before the colours are a misrepresentation. The Alt is better but in all honesty and it brings a whole load of noise issues and what seem like compression artifacts. I wouldn't support the Alt out of quality issues alone. And the first is misrepresentation due to saturations of colours. The image is lovely to look at however! JFitch (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



LED christmas illumination in Viborg, Denmark

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2011 at 19:18:25 (UTC)

Original – Christmas illumination in Sct. Mathias Gade, Viborg, Denmark. The street lightning was first used in 2010 and uses LED lamps. Compared to the previous illumination used in 2009 and before, the LED-based lights will be lead to a reduction in cost for the electricity of 39000 DKK and savings in energy of 29,000 kWh, corresponding to 14.5 ton of CO2. To the right is shown the main entrance to Sct. Mathias Centret, a shopping mall.
Reason
It is a well-composed, high quality photo of a christmas illumination in a Danish town, showing also how far LED illumination has come in producing a pleasant, warm glow, resembling incandescent light bulbs. Well, and its about that season soon...
Articles in which this image appears
LED lamp, Christmas lights
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
Slaunger
  • Support as nominator --Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I always liked this picture and think it adds considerable value to Christmas lights. I have replaced the original picture of the article (too small) with this one. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think we can do much better than this. The overall feel of the picture is very snapshotty. The detail is lacking. The focus is way too shallow, and a lot of the lights, which is what the photo is actually meant to be of, are out of focus. I also don't like the angle and composition. The lights are off centre and the low angle make the floor and the bikes way too much of a prominent part of the picture. JFitch (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for taking your time to review my image. Composition is much a matter of taste, and I will not argue, whether you like that or not. I have used f/13, and I fail to see how that could give shallow focus. IMO the DOF is excellent and no lights are out of focus. If anything, the aperture is on the high side, but I do not see sign of high aperture diffraction (but maybe that is the effect you seem to be seeing?). Concerning overall image quality I have used ISO 100, and an exposure time of 2.5 s using a tripod placed firmly on the ground in no wind. I am very sure there were no vibrations during the exposure. I was laying on the street, and the photo is far from having a snapshotty composition. I have considered many angles and times of day as for instance this centered composition. I did find the centered composition boring though, and decided the frog angle of view was more eye-catching and interesting. I considered taking the photo in the late shop opening hours, but decided not to, because signs on the street placed durring opening hours gave too much visual clutter in the composition. Concerning the floor and bikes, they add EV. Since the photo was taken last year, the floor has been replaced by another type of granite bricks, and the bikes illustrates a typical means of transportation for going to the shopping mall to that entrance. There is another entrance, which is normally reached by car. Thus, both the floor and bicycles are a deliberate element in the composition. I am happy to see that another reviewer below, sees the point with the bikes (not that you are wrong in not appreciating this element, opinions differ, and I respect that). --Slaunger (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The bikes are a nice touch. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I had the same first impressions as JFitch, and after clicking through and reading your explanation I'm still not convinced that this is good enough for a FP. My main concern is the composition which doesn't have a clear focal point. Shooting from the gutter drags the whole image down to earth, rather than focusing on the christmas lights above the street. Personally, I much prefer the centred composition, I find it sets the scene better (snow and people) and the higher angle fits the subject more. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My overall impression is merely that it's a fine photo technically and does well to illustrate a typically lit city street in Europe at Christmas time, but it doesn't come across as particularly notable or interesting to view, and is bit monochromatic and dull. You're right that it does replicate the warm glow of incandescent lighting quite well, but for photography, I wouldn't necessarily say that's a good thing aesthetically as I find it a bit too reminiscent of cheap sodium lighting. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



The Eiffel Tower, view from the Trocadéro

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2011 at 13:58:20 (UTC)

Original – The Eiffel Tower as viewed fom the Trocadéro (nothwest)
Reason
High resolution panorama complementing the existing FP with an alternative view of identical quality. Has been in the article for some time now.
Articles in which this image appears
Eiffel Tower
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Alvesgaspar (talk)
  • Support as nominator. Second nomination. The first one was withdrawn. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really like this shot. However, we already have a FP from the same angle here, albeit taken at dawn. The currently featured picture (the one at dawn) lacks in quality and the one presented here surely has more EV. Maybe the old one should be replaced with this one? Ottojula (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes we have but the two pictures have different approaches: one artistic and the other illustrative. IMO, the illustrative approach (my picture) is more useful because of its encyclopaedic value. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I think your picture (the one nominated here) is way better than the one from the same angle currently featured. IMO the murky picture could easily be replaced with your picture. I'm just waiting for more input before I give my vote. Ottojula (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support There is enough detail to read the names of the scientists and mathematicians facing this way and all of the people make for an interesting scene. However there seems to be a bit of a bow as a result of the stitch, like the sides are leaning in, and I'd prefer to see that corrected. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2 FP's of this is already plenty, and this doesn't offer anything different that is special in my opinion so fails to add EV. JFitch (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm going to oppose, because I think this nomination should take place at the delist and replace section. The nominated picture is far better and more encyclopaedic than the currently featured picture. It makes much more sense to replace this inferior picture than having three FPs of the same subject. Otto Jula (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me that would make little sense. as it is we have 2 very different FP's of this image. A stunning day FP and then also the beautiful night FP. A DL+R would only be appropriate for the most simalar images. So it would be the day image, and this is certainly worse than the day image we have featured. Also it makes more sense to keep a day and a night featured as oppose to 2 day pictures. JFitch (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Manakamana Temple Nepal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2011 at 13:44:45 (UTC)

Original – Manakamana Temple in Manakamana, Gandaki
Reason
This is One of the Religious Place at Nepal. and in the Feature Picture all the Geographical Teritory as well as Cultures and religious should also be included. So this is the best picture to feature.
Articles in which this image appears
Manakamana
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
Creator
Shiva Kumar Khanal

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



A shag for FP

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2011 at 13:05:43 (UTC)

Original – A European Shag on a rock
Reason
High resolution and EV, good colours, lead image in its article
Articles in which this image appears
European Shag
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Andreas Trepte

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Airbus A380

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2011 at 23:19:36 (UTC)

Original – Airbus A380 on final approach to Runway 27R at Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport.
Reason
Excellent picture of an A380, Good EV, excellent resolution.
Articles in which this image appears
Airbus-A380
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator
Qdou

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Constantine medallion

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2011 at 21:50:50 (UTC)

Original – The obverse of a gold medallion, depicting Constantine the Great and Sol Invictus, struck in 313 in Ticinum after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The celestial chariot on Constantine's shield symbolizes the sun's course, while the allegories under the horses represent the earth and the sea.
Reason
A quite elaborate and noble example of Roman medallion craft (although currently without reverse), neutral background.
Articles in which this image appears
Constantine the Great, Ticinum, Battle of the Milvian Bridge
FP category for this image
History or People
Creator
unknown, photographed by Jastrow

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Vanessa Amorosi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2011 at 04:40:58 (UTC)

Original – Australian singer-songwriter Vanessa Amorosi
Reason
Striking, well-composed, high-res professional photo. A couple reservations: focus isn't quite right, or there has been a lot of airbrushing that makes it look a bit OOF. Also, what is going on with her breasts? The bulges in her jacket are way too far apart for any normal human. (and maybe a bit high esp considering she's braless? and asymmetrical in height? and large compared to her flat chest where the jacket is open?) So there's been some slightly fishy photoshopping going on here, but I think the image should get a hearing here regardless. I'm on the fence about whether her bizarre breasts are a deal-breaker.
Articles in which this image appears
Vanessa Amorosi
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Pierre Baroni / Ralph Carr Management
Viewing the image while cranking up gamma correction does reveal some funny business going on around that left tweeter (her left, our right). My guess is that the original photo showed her flat chested on that side (probably both sides) and they "fixed" it by giving the poor dear a bad boob job. JBarta (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could just be a front opening bra sitting under the leather jacket. The photo has obviously been airbrushed pretty significantly though, and there seems to be weird stuff, possibly from cloning, going on around the zip on the right side in particular. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Superstition Mountains

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2011 at 02:29:35 (UTC)


Original – The Superstition Mountains
Reason
This is a very high quality photograph that adds a great deal to its corresponding article.
Articles in which this image appears
Superstition Mountains
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places
Creator
Doug Dolde
  • Support as nominator --LycianFelix (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Honestly, it's not a very high quality image. It's not very high resolution and has relatively poor detail close up. It's full of jpg artifacts and sharpening halos (or as I've recently been told is the sign of a high quality camera... either way take your pick). On top of that, there's the coloring. Things simply look too golden and the sky is a weird blue color. Ruins whatever encyclopedic value the image had. I would even go so far as to say it shouldn't even be in the article, especially not the lead photo, for the coloring reason alone. This would have been a really nice image at higher resolution, with natural colors and before it got saved as a (relatively) highly compressed jpg. JBarta (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All reasons stated above. JFitch (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jbarta. I'd want a landscape shot like this to be several times the size of this image. J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oversaturated, oversharpened and too small. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



An-124 inflight with 2 Su-27s

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2011 at 00:03:35 (UTC)

Original – An Antonov An-124-100 (RA-82028) of 224th Flight Unit inflight with 2 Sukhoi Su-27s of the Falcons of Russia aerobatic team, as part of the flyover contingent for the 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade.
Reason
Is a great visual representation of part of the flyover for the 2010 MVDP, and is of high enough quality that the viewer isn't left wanting for more detail
Articles in which this image appears
2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade, Antonov An-124, Flypast
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator
Commons:User:Bushman787

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]




Nominations older than 9 days — to be closed

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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

Jūichimen Kannon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2011 at 23:43:00 (UTC)

Original - Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy
Alt - Curve (tonality) correction
Reason
High resolution, high quality image of a National Treasure of Japan
Articles in which this image appears
List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)
FP category for this image
artwork
Creator
unknown
What do you mean by "The original artwork can be featured, but not the scan."? There are many scanned images of artwork among featured pictures. As for the curve correction, I am not good at image manipulation, so if something needs to be done to the image, I'd be happy if somebody could do that. If I understand you correctly, the black point needs to be moved to the right. If I do this, the colors become more intensive. However since this is an old (12th century) artwork, it likely has faded a bit, and the present look is probably closer to what it looks today. I would not want to restore it to its original state (which can only be guessed). bamse (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist means to say that they would support a better scan of this piece for FP (I think). Jujutacular talk 02:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which way "better"? bamse (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a scan from the "original"? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think so, yes. Why? bamse (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted File:Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Closing procedure

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.

When promoted, perform the following:

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

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the 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.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Nominations for delisting

Shortcut

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

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

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

Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.

  • Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

Delist closing procedure

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

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:

  1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
  2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

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

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

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

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

  1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive.
  3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Recently closed nominations

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

Comparison of the largest ships

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2011 at 03:25:48 (UTC)

Original – A comparison of some of the largest ships of five different classes
Reason
This is a very illustrative and educational diagram of some of the largest ships of different kinds. It has high EV and even shows the waterline.
Articles in which this image appears
List of world's longest ships, Seawise Giant, Emma Mærsk
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
Notafish, derivative work by Maxrossomachin
I was thinking the very same thing. JBarta (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added the ship type to the image. (Type name according to our List of world's longest ships.) JBarta (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would look bad with that text large as well. It's not necessary that everything be visible/legible at thumbnail size. That's why it's a thumbnail. I think it's fine as it is. JBarta (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "fine" is the last description that applies in its current state. The adage has always been that FPs should stand on their own at main page size, and in that sense, this is definitely below par. There is no possible reason other than laziness that one kind of information should be privileged over the other. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laziness? I think you're way off base. In a technical image (of which this is a simple one), it's perfectly reasonable to scale the text size to the image... NOT blow up all the text in a clumsy attempt to make everything always legible at thumbnail size. I would argue that's just plain stupid and would make for some silly looking images. The thumbnail version gives a great overview of the image. Viewing in full size offers more detail. And that would be the smart way to do it in my opinion. Laziness or privileged information has nothing to do with it. And while "adages" are all warm and fuzzy in an Uncle Remus sort of way, I would prefer you point to actual FP criteria written in cold hard text so everyone can see it and no one has to guess what the current adages are. JBarta (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the question, which was: why is one kind of information judged worthy of a larger font size than the other? Samsara (FA • FP) 00:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to repeat what I said above... it has more to do with appearance than one bit of information being more worthy than another. The text is the size it is because it looks best that way. And you're missing an important point... the text is secondary. The main purpose of the image is the visual representation of differing ship sizes. If you removed all text except the names of the ships it would still convey 98% of the information it is meant to convey. JBarta (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that somewhere along the line the photo caption changed from "the largest" to "some of the largest"... that's good and hopefully will carry into the article. The QE2 is case in point... it's not the largest passenger ship by length but it is by weight. I found that a bit confusing at first. JBarta (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of this page in the How to Comment section it says All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. Just to stir the pot a little, what could be addressed to make you support the image? JBarta (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the colours of the ships don't seem to mean anything in particular, I suggest that the same two colours (one consistently for above waterline, one consistently for below waterline) be used for all ships. Of the listed combinations, red-bottom and grey-top seems sensible, although blue-bottom (not currently used) might add to ease of understanding. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the seeking of uniformity, I would suggest the varied colors do not really disrupt the readers' understanding by any significant amount. Actually, I think the colors might even add to the visual appeal... they also emphasize that these are a series of different classes of ship. JBarta (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I was looking for what the colours mean, and it's frustrating to go looking for information that is not there/relevant, so I believe this simple fix should be executed. If the picture is found to have no appeal with uniform colours, then it also had none with random colours. What we're trying to convey is information, not fuzzy sensations at meaningless multicoloration. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Yes, it is useful and has obvious ev. But I see nothing extraordinary justying the status. In my opinion, it lacks the sophistication of most of our featured illustrations. By the way, the distance scale is awfull! Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by "distance scale"? JBarta (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I understand the purpose of the different colors on individual ships, but why do different ships have different colors? SpencerT♦C 04:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my question was resolved. Weak Oppose nonetheless. Though it has okay enc. and looks much cleaner than it did at the start, I don't feel that this is one of the "top" images on Wikipedia.
  • Updated image in response to some of the comments. Colors are consistent, foot conversion added to lengths, scale bar toned down a little and "Seawise Giant" added to biggest ship to (hopefully) reduce confusion. In addition, all the text bits are now actual text so they can be more easily edited/translated. This image won't achieve FP status, but maybe these changes made it a better image. JBarta (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Armoring of SMS Bayern

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2011 at 03:31:14 (UTC)

Original – The protection scheme for the SMS Bayern
Reason
Educative and good looking. Very high EV, both for the individual ship and the class.
Articles in which this image appears
SMS Bayern (1915), Bayern class battleship
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
Maxrossomachin

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Delta formation by Blue Angels

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2011 at 03:12:49 (UTC)

Original – The Blue Angels performing in San Diego in 2011a caption for the image, providing adequate context for voters on WP:FPC
Reason
High resolution, high EV, good contrast and framing. Free image.
Articles in which this image appears
Blue Angels
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator
Dirk Hansen

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Portland, Oregon in 1897

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2011 at 07:07:35 (UTC)

Original – A surveyors map of Portland, Oregon in 1897
Reason
High quality, map of historic value, interesting colours
Articles in which this image appears
Portland, Oregon
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator
U.S. Geological Survey, derivative work by EncMstr

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Malkovich

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2011 at 20:48:47 (UTC)

Original – a portrait of the famous actor John Malkovich at the 44th Karlovy Vary International Film Festival, Czech Republic.
Reason
Very good high resolution portrait of Malkovich.
Articles in which this image appears
John Malkovich
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Che
  • Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I like the pose, to be honest. Background isn't too distracting. However, it does not appear especially sharp in my opinion, and the lighting is a little uneven. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose -- Nice picture, nice pose, nice expression... but too much shadow. Way too much shadow IMO. If the lighting were better, it would be perfect. (I made an edit just for gits and shiggles trying to reduce the shadow, but the more I looked at it, the more I didn't like it.) JBarta (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this is very good edit. The only problem is the shade of the eyes, imo. Can we put it here as an alternative version?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different color eyes... didn't notice that until I uploaded it. I also gave him age spots or a powder burn on his forehead. It's not a good edit. The original, even with its faults is better. No sense in putting it here as an alternative. It will just muddy the water and get shot down faster than an Arab jet. I mentioned it because I didn't want my effort to be completely in vain and it might at least serve as an amusing curiosity. JBarta (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Poor lighting, Both unattractive shadows and overexposure. DOF too shallow a lot of detail lost. Seems exceptionally noisy for only ISO250. Poor crop for original image size. Background distracting however that is less a technical problem and more my personal opinon. Overall the standard is certainly not upto what we hold portraits to here at FPC. JFitch (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. At thumbnail, I was going to weakly support (weakly for the distracting background) but, at full size, the focus seems off. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per lighting. Also the background letters are a bit distracting. Materialscientist (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Speedwayriders

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2011 at 13:32:57 (UTC)

Original – Speedwayriders riding in start number 17 in Speedway Extraliiga -competition in Yyteri speedway venue.
Reason
Good action shot, EV
Articles in which this image appears
Motorcycle speedway, Motorsport
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator
kallerna

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Thermite

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2011 at 08:32:17 (UTC)

Original – An aluminothermic reaction with Iron(III) oxide; as known as a thermite reaction. The mixture was ignited in a glass jar using a length of Magnesium ribbon. The sparks flying outwards are globules of molten iron, trailing smoke in their wake.
Edit 1 - Tighter crop
Reason
I think it's a pretty nice shot and useful in many articles. Is of sufficient resolution etc and has had very little manipulation (crop & slight curve tweak).
Articles in which this image appears
Thermite, Chemical reaction, Exothermic reaction, Aluminothermic reaction, Exothermic
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
Creator
Nikthestoned
  • Support either version. Pinetalk 05:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It's a fine image, but not exceptionally useful (especially since there seem to be quite a few such images lying around). What would be really cool and useful and encyclopedic for the article is a high quality video clip of one of these reactions. Then you'd really have something. JBarta (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiki's video support really sucks though at the moment. They don't support h264 as they should. 1080p ogg video needs pretty ridiculous bit rates to get decent quality. This lowers the value in articles hugely in my view - no one will sit around waiting for them to load. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:ThermiteReaction.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Qantas Boeing 747-400 VH-OJU over Starbeyevo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2011 at 09:20:07 (UTC)

Original – A Qantas 747-400 seen flying over Starbeyevo (Moscow region) at 11,000m
Reason
This is an extremely high quality image of a 747-400 overflying Moscow at 11,000m. The photo was taken from the ground. Note that the contrails are only visible on aircraft at an extreme altitude, so to have a planform view of an aircraft, in such resolution, and with contrails showing, is an extraordinary feat.
Articles in which this image appears
Boeing 747, Contrail
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator
Commons:User:Bushman787
  • Question -- Awesome image, but I'm wondering about the black "sky". Am I correct in assuming this photo was taken during the day and the black sky was added later? Also, I think it could use a small bit of touchup, most notably... 1) You missed a tiny bit of something on the leftmost engine. 2) The leading edge of the left wing near the fuselage has a bit of discoloration. 3) There are a few glowing pixels on the trail ends of the flap track fairings that jump out at you. JBarta (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The black sky is probably as a result of colour balancing; at high altitiude the large amount of air between the observer and the plane makes the plane appear blueish. Adjusting this blue to white has the side effect of making the sky very low saturation. In this case the white reflections on the plane make it far brighter than the background sky so the plane appears white and the sky appears black. - Zephyris Talk 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my photo, but is rather one I have gotten permission to use and the photographer has provided larger resolution pics, etc. Russavia Let's dialogue 02:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- While I think this is a very nice image, I'm opposing because I'm not satisfied that the black sky is a natural effect of simple color balancing. Looking at various images of contrails, they invariably show a blue sky. In that regard, this image is (IMO) not entirely encyclopedic and a better contrail image should be sought. As a photo of the plane, I suppose it shows the underside nicely, but again, I'd prefer it were shown in a more realistic setting (blue sky). This is an encyclopedia, not an art show. JBarta (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I think about it, I would be very interested to see a copy of this image before anything was done to it, just as it was taken. JBarta (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Hakaniemi metro station

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2011 at 13:27:45 (UTC)

Original – Hakaniemi metro station of Helsinki Metro.
Reason
good EV, quality, composition
Articles in which this image appears
Hakaniemi metro station
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
kallerna

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]



"England Expects that every man will do his duty"

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2011 at 01:21:44 (UTC)

Original – England expects that every man will do his duty
Reason
This is considered the most famous signal to have been sent in the Royal Navy. It was hoisted aboard HMS Victory on orders from Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson at the onset of the Battle of Trafalgar, and has become a culturally significant part of British history. As a rallying cry, the signal has been copied in some way shape or form by various other naval groups spanning both time and continent. This is a vectorized version of the flag signal, as such while not ostensibly at the 1000px minimum needed it should not be an issue given the ability of vectorized images to be re-sized as needed.
Articles in which this image appears
Battle of Trafalgar, War of the Third Coalition, John Pasco, England expects that every man will do his duty
FP category for this image
History
Creator
Original created by John Pasco, this version created by Commons User:Ipankonin
Try Wikipedia. I hear they got articles on just about everything.... JBarta (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted File:England Expects Signal.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Turku Castle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2011 at 20:34:22 (UTC)

Original – Turku Castle, dating from the 13th century, is the largest surviving medieval building in Finland, and one of the largest surviving medieval castles in Scandinavia.
Reason
This is a quality photo of Turku Castle as seen from the harbour side. A previous version of the same photo was nominated here. Since the nomination last year the photo has been cropped and the color balance tweaked. The photo appears as lead image on the English, German, French, Swedish and Russian language articles.
Articles in which this image appears
Turku Castle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Ottojula

Promoted File:Turkucastle edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Keep Calm and Carry On Poster.svg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2011 at 22:21:51 (UTC)

Inaccurate rendering of a 1939 poster
Reason
This is an inaccurate, faithless rendering of a 1939 poster. I have (so far) four main complaints: 1) The font weight seems just a little too much. 2) The letter spacing is completely wrong - much too close together. 3) The sentence spacing is too tight. 4) The colour is completely wrong; the original is not a dayglo red. These things being the case - certainly the last three - it just is not the same as the original. On what basis are we featuring something which is (at least for me) a travesty of the original?
Articles this image appears in
Keep Calm and Carry On
Previous nomination/s
Promoted, Earlier, not promoted
Nominator
Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Comment Hi there, this is Mononomic, the creator of this image. This originally was a task I picked up from the Graphic Lab, so I feel somewhat at fault for the accusations made here. I'll address the complaints one by one.
Firstly, the vector image was traced in Illustrator from one of the higher-resolution images out of the countless sources from the Internet (copyright has long expired). The idea of having one "original" is somewhat flawed: the original is in a glass case somewhere in England; no "original" can exist in digital form, only close representations of that image. I can guarantee that it matches pixel-perfect to a specific source image, but people's different photographs (angles, lenses, lighting) are bound to produce totally different images that only approximate the original work. As for the font, the sentence spacing and text weight is not a "font face" as some have mentioned: many fonts are similar to the type used here, but historians have agreed that the type was set by hand for this design and is thus impossible to reproduce with a commercial font. As for the color concerns, even the original poster—the one printed by the Ministry of Information—has undergone color shifts over time due to fading, etc. and I picked something close. Even so, a ten-second fix in Illustrator could fix the color issue without having to break out the mob and delist this from Featured status.
It seems that my work is seen "faithless" depiction of a poster, a "travesty" perhaps. If you'd like, I'd be happy to retrace the poster from a new "original" that is deemed to be more of an accurate representation of the true original. I believe that presenting this historical object in vector (SVG) format emphasizes the graphic qualities of the original artwork, instead of the photographer's ability to take a picture of the poster which may or may not be an original. By distilling an iconic image such as this one into vector format, we are providing a professional and accurate depiction of the fundamental intent and message of the poster.
I hope this clears some things up. I'll be checking back to see how it progresses. Cheers, —Mono·nomic 04:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide the source of the image you used to trace from? There's TONS of remade versions of this floating on the internet, from new products, t-shirts, everything. The link above is a photograph of a real original poster (at some book store that found a copy and has it on the wall), it's pretty high resolution, just not a straight on shot, so it needs fixed in Photoshop before you can trace. I have SIGNIFICANT experience in Photoshop and illustrator (10 years working in graphic design from newspapers to magazines) so I'm not a total noob here. I have a strong feeling that either (a) there are multiple versions of this that the government put out, which is possible, poster making in that time wasn't really an exact process and there was variation between the versions. It's probably stenciled and hand painted posters, if I had to guess. All I can say is the poster I compared it too, it is not an accurate match to it, the front spacing is off, the line spacing is off, and the crown is the wrong size and not in the same position. I'm not 100% sure that you didn't accurately retrace another version of the poster, and from what I know of poster making of the period it's very possible that there is wide variation in each poster. But please show us what you traced so we can decide from that? — raekyt 04:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely not an image of an original poster, that's someone's recreation of it. From our comparisons with original posters there is some fairly significant differences in the typeface and formatting. It can probably be resolved, but as it stands I'm still sticking to delisting until theses issues are resolved. — raekyt 06:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept that Mononomic's recreation is a faithful copy of whatever he/she copied it from, but as observed here and elsewhere, it is not a copy of the original. That makes it faithless. And the colour is a complete and utter travesty. Sorry dude, but even accounting for colour shift arising out of the passage of time, the original was never a dayglo gloss red. In the event that you do recreate it and wish it to be featured, you need to make a much better colour choice than you did this time around. I don't know how you create a matt orangy-red in photoshop, but I can advise that it is not a uniform d00000 (which would be what? Some sort of primary red colour?).
Your comments on the "mob" are not helpful. The fact is that by the lottery of these things, the photo came up as prospective picture of the day. That was the point at which I became aware that it was featured; the image had been pissing me off for some time previously - vide my recaptioning in September. It's clear to me that the original listing was flawed, and the correct thing is to delist, pending an improvement such that a recreation can be considered for a new listing. The incorrect thing is to keep a flawed image listed, on the off chance that an improvement can be made. I'm sorry, but not very surprised, that you are now a bit pissed off. But that's what happens when you pass off a flawed copy as an original, even if you're unaware that that is what you're doing. --09:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)
  • I understand your concerns. I'll see if I can trace a new poster based on the image raeky provided that would be more suitable. I believe FP delists have 14 days from the original nomination until a verdict is reached, no? We'll see what I can get done by then. If you can find another source image that would be more suitable, please let me know. Cheers, —Mono·nomic 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your reaction to all of this. I suspect in your position I'd have succumbed to the temptation to say say "sod it" or "bugger them" and walked away from it all. So you have my vote for red poster wikipedian of the year; if that helps. I don't know of any other online sources of the poster, but point you at the final comment of the first thread on the KC&CO talk page Talk:Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On#Poster_shows_modern_recreation.2C_not_original which (assuming good faith) has a link to a scan of the original. Right now, possibly related to the ongoing trade mark dispute, Barter Books has taken down their original copy. I'll see if I can find out where it is and get a photo of it. Finally, I wouldn't worry about whether or not this instance is delisted. If you come up with a faithful version, you'll get widespread support - including mine. Time is not of the essence; accuracy is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a snap of the original poster Image:Keep Calm And Carry On - Original poster - Barter Books - 17-Oct-2011.jpg and have swapped out the SVG from the article page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have our replacement candidate. Does somebody want to take this on or do we have to bring it to the graphics lab? upstateNYer 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't support that as a replacement, it has reflections from the glass frame and the skewing isn't exactly right. — raekyt 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; it's not & never will be a candidate for a FP. Meanwhile I've started a discussion on the KC&CO talk page as to whether we'd prefer a flawed photo of a shiny synthetic replacement. Contributions welcomed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or abort nom as per previous comment that this is the wrong channel for raising the complaint. I've now made a minimal fix to the file, which is to put the crown symbol in the same relation with the "KEEP" text as is found in Tagishsimon's uploaded image. I'm under no illusion that this puts things right, but I'm confident that others will build on my work to make it so. Have at it! Samsara (FA • FP) 11:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. The colour is still all wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that was relevant to my previous statement, but I'll just point out that there seems to be no consensus yet on what the colour should be. I should emphasise that I in no way volunteer to be your foil for this issue. If you want to debate the merits of showing the colours as faded vs. what they would have looked like in the day, please find someone else who has that sort of expertise. Samsara (FA • FP) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me spell it out, Bubba. You're recommending that the nomination be aborted and, if I understand you, that we keep the featured status. I disagree, because I think the colour is wrong. I'm not seeking to make you a foil for this issue. I'm merely disagreeing with your assertion that this should be a featured picture. That's the sort of discussion we tend to conduct in delist pages such as this. I note that at least a couple of people who have seen original versions of the poster disagree with the throbbing red of this image. I accept that you do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on colour, and that's fine. But getting your panties in a bunch as you have just done when what seems to be legitimate opposition to your view is expressed, is less fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The apparent resolution of the issue, although I'm somewhat surprised at the colour "compromise" that Tagishsimon seems to have jumped to, after characterising the colour of the current FP as "dayglo red" and insisting that this was the wrong colour. I did look up dayglo red and was left wondering if any of this debatering had actually got us anywhere. I believe an impartial analysis of whether Stuart Manley's "folded poster at the bottom of a box of random books he'd bought at auction" is in any way authentic or even faithful is still outstanding. Meanwhile, someone else has picked up the story. Perhaps someone has the time to read the thesis cited therein, as I am suspicious of the journalist's synopsis thereof (not that there isn't plenty else to be suspicious of...). Samsara (FA • FP) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Jaws of Death, digital restoration

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2011 at 14:09:25 (UTC)

Original – Into the Jaws of Death - U.S. Troops wading through water and Nazi gunfire.
Reason
restored iconic image with high historic value, used in various media
Articles in which this image appears
please see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1944_NormandyLST.jpg#File%20usage%20on%20other%20wikis
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/World_War_II
Creator
Robert F. Sargent
Speedy close Peter, if you believe (and can argue convincingly) that the version above is an improvement over the currently featured version of the image, the proper procedure is to nominate the current featured image for delisting and replacement. The image you nominate above appears to more closely resemble the TIF file from the NARA, which I assume is the original scan. Personally I think a better edit of the photo is this version, which is featured on Commons. Fallingmasonry (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fallingmasonry, as indicated in the file description of my restoration the TIFF is the original I used for this restoration. Here are the reasons why the current featured picture is inferior: The overall quality regarding sharpness, level of detail and contrast of this NARA sourced restoration is better than the current commons featured picture. The current featured picture was developed differently, resulting in lighter skies, and a darker foreground. Please be sure you see the heavy posterisation in the right bottom corner. An indicator for an insufficient workover of the current featured picture. However, if you are unable to identify this posterisation please try to access this image with a calibrated display. Moreover it suffers from jpg compression artifacts, a darkish veil at the left side and numerous scratches, filaments and dust. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the point of my remark. You have nominated your picture incorrectly because (1) It is not included in any articles, and (2) Another version of the image is already featured. If you would like to have your version of the image replace the one that is currently featured, you need to nominate 1944_NormandyLST.jpg for delisting and replacement. All I am talking about is the correct procedure, I do not mean to make a judgment on the photo.Fallingmasonry (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this to mean two versions of an image cannot be a Featured Picture at the same time? Even if they are dissimilar as these are? I don't see this in the criteria. Can you point to where you're getting these procedures? JBarta (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not written explicitly in the procedures, but it's strongly implied by criterion #5. The purpose of FPs is to illustrate articles; if multiple versions of a photo exist, featured status lets us know which version is the best. If you ask yourself "In which articles would we put the above picture?", the answer is probably, "In the same articles that the featured version is located". Even though they are edited differently, they are the same photo. If we tried to make the above photo eligible for promotion by adding it to an article, we would have to remove the Featured version of the photo. Chances are this edit would be reverted quickly, since FP status is used to determine the preferred version of a photo.
You can see this idea in practice elsewhere on the FPC page. It's why, in nominations with alternative edits, we select only one version for promotion. It's why, for wildlife photos in particular, we occasionally vote to delist a high quality photo in favor of a slightly better photo of the same subject. Fallingmasonry (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I think this is an inferior alteration of an iconic photo. The dark swath in the sky kills it in my opinion. I don't think it's just a development difference. I believe this version of the photo was deliberately altered to make it more foreboding. Now it's art. On the issue of its historical significance, I tend to believe that an unedited (or much less heavily edited) version of the photo has the real historical significance. I happened across a Time Magazine cover using the unedited version. Even our own Wikipedia article on the image uses the unedited version. I'm not convinced this particular version of the image is significant in any way, other than to sit in the giant shadow of the original photograph. And then there's the matter of it not being used in any articles... JBarta (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI: The TIME magazine cover you refer to is in no way "unedited". It was at least cropped and rotated in order to achieve a straight horizon. Despite blatantly ignoring the further reading notice, here you go again: another TIME magazine cover. Your use of the terms "edited" and "unedited" suggest that we have deeper knowledge about which version was first. As noted above and on the Commons, I assume that both images are based on the same negative and were proceeded with a different developer resulting in dark skies. The decision for the dark skies version has to do with the availibity amongst high resolution NARA files. Sadly neither the current en:wiki nor the current commons featured picture can deliver the quality required for a thorough digital restoration. Therefore I was using the original provided by NARA. We are not able to verify which version was first with the current state of the art. Based on the TIME magazine covers, the dark sky version is the earlier version. It's a pity to see several dozens hours of work debased as "inferior alteration". As for the article use: I did not intend to replace the current images from the articles, without community consenst in form of a successful nomination. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume the landings took place during daylight hours (albiet in the early morning), and we assume the sky at that time was gray or lighter, and given that other developments of this image show the expected gray sky, is it then reasonable to suggest that the black sky in this image was at some point added for effect rather than simply being an innocent result of the developing process? JBarta (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of either the dark or light skies version is no accurate indicator for the actual situation and therefore an invalid argument. We don't know about the image's processing, time the image was taken and actual intensity of the sky colour while the shot was taken. Unless there's any proof to this, any discussion on these issues remain mere speculation. "Adding for effect" and the "developing process" are not two different things. Both representations of the negative underwent a decision for a certain developement and therefore: yes of course, both images were developed "for effect". Based on what we can see on the image - the remains of a Sherman tank for instance - we may say that this image was taken after the first wave and therefore after 0630AM (GMT+2). Your preference for the lighter skies version has been noticed. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it may be worth to you, I'll take back the word "inferior". JBarta (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this, the level & quality of some detail is greater in this dark sky version than either the English language FP or the Commons FP. I would hate to think that the only version in existance with the higher quality detail is the one with the black sky. Are there no gray sky versions out there with the same level of detail as this black sky version? JBarta (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The very fact that we're in the dark over the particular manipulative history of any of these versions suggests to me that this nomination is premature. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Aside from the controversial dark sky, the actual quality of the nominated version is unarguably better. It's clean, sharp and has an impressive dynamic range. Just compare the shadow details to the currently featured version. On the other hand, this discussion should be held at the "delist and replace" section and not here. Otto Jula (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Chinese chess board

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2011 at 23:50:28 (UTC)

Original – A Chinese chess board
Reason
The best of its kind
Articles in which this image appears
Xiangqi
FP category for this image
Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Trongphu
  • Support as nominator --Trongphu (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated this before. Now after I took advices from last time and with the help of someone else. The image has been fixed and now I think it deserves feature. And about the concrete, I don’t think anything is wrong with it. It wouldn’t look so good if I put it on white paper. To me concrete looks more nature.

For many people this is just a simple chess board so what is special about it? This is not simply chess. It is consider as a sport in China, there is even international competition. If someone knows enough about China they can’t talk about Chinese culture without mention about this chess. This chess is strongly representing the culture of China. This chess is just as popular as football to America as it is to China. This chess used to be the most popular activity to do in common people before the merged of new kind of entertainment. It’s hard to believe that a Chinese person doesn’t know how to play this. There are about at least 1/5 of all population in the world know how to play this chess (this is only considered the population of China only). It could be even be ¼ if consider other countries beside China that play this chess. This is the most famous kind of chess in Asia or Eastern world. According to the amount of people in the world know how to play this I believe this is the most popular chess in the world because it has the most players. Even though it doesn’t attract that many fans or attention on TV today but it is still widely play by most people in their free time. Before 20th century it used to attract local wide like people in village come to watch respective players play a match when there is one, it even gathered nation attention sometimes like people talk about it when there are the best two players play a match but not many can watch it because there is no TV. It was the only sport that can achieve that accomplishment at that time. For all the meaningful of this chess, it deserves some kind of special recognition. I’m not sure if there is any better image to represent the chess.Trongphu (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -- It's the same image as before, just with the edges of the board digitally straightened. I suppose we could call that one criticism more or less bedded down, but there's still the hurdle of it being a very ordinary image... definitely not Featured Picture worthy (IMO). Plus, now it's cropped even tighter. Last time I gave it a "weak oppose". This time I'm opposing it fully because you're attempting to push through basically the same image. Last time you got ZERO supports... if it were me, I would take that as a hint that this particular image just isn't gonna fly and try with something else or retake the picture in a different way. Apparently you arrived at a different conclusion. And one more thing, while it's obvious that you have an appreciation for and knowlege of the game, that has no bearing on whether or not this image should be a featured picture. JBarta (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well i guess some people can't see the beauty of something that people really enjoy doing, something that mean a lot to a lot of people in this Earth. It's the same image yea but did you look it it carefully before you oppose? I can bet anything that this image has changed to a lot to a better version compare to last time. To you how the image, of this chess, become worthy of feature. I'm not going to argue with you, each person has different perspective. You can't see it worthy, it's your own opinion and i respect that. I'm going to see what the majority people sees and if they saw the same thing as you do then it's fine, not a big deal to me. I will take my chance.Trongphu (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The subject may be noteworthy, and I can be convinced that a photo of a game board is worthy of FP, but this photo seems to have some slight blurring. I think this deserves the Quality Image award that it got, but probably not FP. Pinetalk 07:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Xiangqi is obviously a notable topic, but that's irrelevant here. The photograph is uninteresting, and any EV it might have is made redundant by the svg diagram at the top of the article. Instead of nominating the same drab image again, you might consider following the suggestions in the previous discussion for taking a more informative, more visually interesting photograph. Fallingmasonry (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended nominations

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=459074990"