Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia. Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria. Promoting an image If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well. Delisting an image A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance. Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December. Note that delisting an image does not mean deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article(s).

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures ← On Wikimedia Commons Featured topics Featured picture tools: Featured picture criteria Featured picture candidates Nomination procedure On Wikimedia Commons Featured picture candidates archive Featured pictures thumbs Picture of the day Picture of the day archive Random featured picture

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 ().

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, .

Current nominations

FPCs needing feedback
	The Scream

Heart diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 07:15:44 (UTC)

Original – Structure diagram of the human heart. Blue components indicate de-oxygenated blood pathways and red components indicate oxygenated blood pathways.

Reason

This was previously nominated by User:Makeemlighter here and was closed with no quorum. The diagram has evolved a bit and thought might give it another try. Issues raised by Jjron have been fixed if not improved.

Articles in which this image appears

Human heart, Heart, Ventricle (heart), Chordae tendineae

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator ----ZooFari 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. OK diagram and I like the cross-section approach. However, in the two general hear articles, there are a lot of similar diagrams and such (one has this image dropped down into references and is just way overloaded with same stuff). For the more particular articles on heart string and ventricle, the diagram is somewhat helpful as they lack a diagram. But I think for those articles, this drawing is overkill, labeling every part of the heart, rather than the few relevant to that smaller topic.TCO (Reviews needed) 06:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You say "in the two general hear articles, there are a lot of similar diagrams and such", but there aren't any other cross-sectional diagrams of hearts in either article. There are external labeling diagrams, but you don't get a perspective on the actual shape of the chambers. Spencer^T♦C 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per previous nomination; I supported that as well. Spencer^T♦C 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, AGF it is accurate to the sources. upstateNYer 05:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is a beautiful diagram --Guerillero | My Talk 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, although the highlight on the left common carotid artery should be curved to match the shape of the artery. Kaldari (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment One of the references (second) is a broken link which should be fixed. It is worth putting a webcite (http://www.webcitation.org/) link in a comment next to references if something is liable to disappear (eg web links). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Suspend until reference fixed. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Updated sources and fixed gradient errors. ZooFari (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

When I click through past the image page the backing of the left atrium disappears (visible on image page). Can someone check this? --jjron (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I have also changed the gradient above the semilunar valve leading up into the pulmonary arteries to make it more "hole-like". You may compare between the versions and re-evaluate (if procedures here allow it). ZooFari (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - updated refs are fine. Needs moving back to voting area...Nikthestoned 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oops! Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to voting for a few more days. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if you just want more support votes, you have another here. Quite nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support Though I think we have too many FP diagrams that aren't anything very special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pteronura brasiliensis (talk • contribs) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support (Awesome work) and congrats :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Heart diagram-en.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Cranmer

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 15:35:06 (UTC)

Original – Thomas Cranmer, in a portrait by Gerlach Flicke. Cranmer was a leader of the English Reformation and Archbishop of Canterbury in the mid 1500s.

Reason

High EV, attractive, clearly PD despite what the National Gallery claims. Previous nomination failed after not garnishing enough support.

Articles in which this image appears

Thomas Cranmer + 5

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Gerlach Flicke

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A little on the soft side perhaps, but a fine portrait, and I'll accept your point on the PD. --jjron (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Original artwork is good compositionally and in details (good view of the man). Subject is highly notable.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as per my original nom. Good to see this back here. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - visually striking, per nom. Royalbroil 01:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Thomas Cranmer by Gerlach Flicke.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Large painted locust

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 15:29:44 (UTC)

Original – The Large Painted Locust, or Schistocerca melanocera, native to the Galapagos Islands and Ecuador

Reason

High quality and EV, good illustration of the article, striking colours. Former nomination fell just short of the 5 supports necessary.

Articles in which this image appears

Schistocerca melanocera

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Benjamint444

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Same as last time. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Just does not seem that special. Total stub of an article. Not really supporting discussion of a detailed description for instance and not that different from many other insect FPs. (I know peeps will hate the rationale, but it's good to have different perspectives...I'm a strong article guy, like seeing a connect to content, not just snaps).TCO (Reviews needed) 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• No offense, but that oppose rationale is not based in the criteria. These things can get fixed, like Marrus orthocanna (article was a stub during the FP process, then was expanded by someone looking for a fairly easy DYK and good picture). If nobody has been bold and expanded it (not always possible, especially with individual species articles), then it will go to Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused, similar to File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth) wb edit.jpg. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't not support the picture on the grounds of the article being a stub (that is not in the Criteria, (as said above by Crisco).... Does the picture not contribute to the article unless its full length? Is the article not worthy of having a featured picture in it? Just because the article is a stub, that means the picture doesn't give it EV? Dusty777 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to be neener-neener legalistic, I could say that I had given an EV rationale "Not really supporting discussion of a detailed description." But really...I just feel I go more by the spirit of the law than by the letter. It just seems like we are not promoting what is most valuable. Anyhow, changed to comment so as not to make the vote off. And will not leave future comments. Let it go at that.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support per nom. Lighting is pretty harsh creating a lot of reflections off bug and harsh lighting on tree, but it's quite well controlled. 'Feels' a bit oversharpened (sadly exif has been stripped making it harder to evaluate). Back antenna unfortunately disappears behind that twig. Article needs development, but EV is there. --jjron (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support The picture is excellent, but it does need some tuning (per jjron). Dusty777 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Only 3 out of 5 required supports Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Skull of Venezuelan red howler

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 15:23:25 (UTC)

Original – Skull of a Venezuelan red howler

Reason

High quality and EV. Former nomination received little discussion.

Articles in which this image appears

Venezuelan red howler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Didier Descouens

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support as before. Jujutacular ^talk 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this was a rare fossil then OK, but for an extant and according to the article fairly common species I'm not sure why we'd feature such a damaged skull (most notably all the missing teeth). --jjron (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Doubt the specimen had access to a dentist... Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• So let's find one that did. ;) --jjron (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Zoo? Argh, good luck. Oh well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Given it was sourced from the Muséum de Toulouse collection it well could have come from a zoo originally. Regardless, I note their baboon skull for example does not suffer from this problem. --jjron (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• <supersmall>Cheap zoo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)</supersmall>

• If JJHarrison can shoot all those bird shots, maybe he could just go lop some heads until we get one with better teeth? But seriously, I don't feel the skull is very damaged and dentition is not an emphasis of the article. (for that I think you want separated open jaw, perhaps even detached into two arcs.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Like the aspect (angled view) and feel you get some good content, not seen from the living head. There is some detailed discussion in the facing text about the large jaw for example. I wish there was a bit less super anatomical term writing, but that is a side issue.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I discovered by chance that appointment (thank to Crisco 1492). The skull dates from the early 1920s and was taken in the forest. The interest of the image is in the angle of view which is not usual. This is to show the interest of Focus stacking.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not enough support (4S, 1O) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Netherlandish Proverbs

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 10:37:42 (UTC)

Original – Pieter Bruegel the Elder's Netherlandish Proverbs, illustrating 100 Dutch idioms and proverbs common in mid-16th century Netherlands.

Reason

High resolution, striking, immense EV, used throughout the encyclopedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Netherlandish Proverbs, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and 6 more.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Pieter Bruegel the Elder, digitized by the Google Art Project

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support High EV and good quality. --Elekhh (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Perennial curio favourite. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Supprt, very cool. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. High EV. TCO (Reviews needed) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pieter Brueghel the Elder - The Dutch Proverbs - Google Art Project.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Two worlds set apart by a line: San Diego–Tijuana

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 07:55:41 (UTC)

Original – Border fence between Tijuana (right) and San Diego's border patrol offices (left)

Reason

An excellent resolution. This picture is one "worth a thousand words," since it shows two completely different worlds (Mexico on the right and the United States on the left) set apart by a borderline.

Articles in which this image appears

San Diego–Tijuana; Tijuana

FP category for this image

Category:San Diego–Tijuana

Creator

Sgt. 1st Class Gordon Hyde, upload by user: Wikifreund, Germany

• Support as nominator --ComputerJA (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose -- Striking indeed, but the colours seem off. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Interesting. Caught my eye and made me look into it more. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support this was highly educational. I have never seen this border before, and this reminds me of the Haiti/Dominican Republic border, and others where the political border affects geography.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Saffron Blaze. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• 'Oppose doesnt feel like a natural presentation, description needs some clarity I expected mexico would be on the left as its to the "south". Description doesnt help to improve orientation needs a "looking north/south/east/west" Gnangarra 13:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good content, but photo just does not seem clear (I think the smoggy day or maybe the angle). Probably better if fence at center of photo also, and just a little wider aspect ratio (since we empahsize left to right, eye wants more sweep in that dimension). The droppoff (and bushes) in foreground is unfortunate as well (think shot without showing that would be better).TCO (Reviews needed) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Always liked this photo. Never thought to nominate, though. upstateNYer 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Striking composition. May be relevant in border control. Already in Mexico–United States border. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Really good picture. As you mentioned, it really defines what the candidates should aim for--a picture expressing a thousand words. BlackWaterPatrol (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Border USA Mexico.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Boy "holding his head"

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 02:57:05 (UTC)

Original – A boy "holding his own head" in a Visual gag

Reason

A high resolution image that I believe meets the Featured Picture criteria. This image recently became a Featured Picture on Commons [1]. A great candidate for April Fool's Day Featured Picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Visual gag

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Böhringer

• Support as nominator --Royalbroil 02:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to support, but I have trouble supporting an image illustrating an article with zero sources. Can you dig up something? Jujutacular ^talk 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• ...And recent articles in The Signpost people comment that there are no low-hanging fruit left... I added some sources; now I have a nice topic to work on. The article was a mess of random fandom and I'm cleaning up using quality sources. Royalbroil 17:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- The quality of the article is not necessarily a consideration for FP; for POTD, on the other hand... if you want this for April Fools, someone needs to start adding sources. The image is good, I like it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose' Nice concept but not well excecuted given the distracting elements in the background. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Funny and all, but the sunlight is behind them so the boy's face is completely in the shade, the right foot is a little chopped off, and it's not centered. Also (and I know it's being a bit picky), but you can see the neck by the right hand's middle finger. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would generally support random fandom, or sundry pundry, but I feel a little more seriousness is required in this case. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Low encyclopedic benefit. Even just as a photo, seems trivial.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Saints Cyril and Methodius National Library

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2012 at 07:22:18 (UTC)

Original – Saints Cyril and Methodius National Library of Bulgaria is among the main symbols of Sofia. It was designed by the architectural team Vasilyov-Tsolov, leading Bulgarian architects from the first half of the 20th century.

Reason

Quality dynamic photo which presents the whole front facade of one of the landmarks of Sofia.

Articles in which this image appears

SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library, Ivan Vasilyov

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MrPanyGoff

• Support as nominator --MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Nicely taken. I can imagine that this is probably the best possible view of the subject (any closer and distortion becomes distracting, any further and the trees become too prevalent, in summer, the leaves would obscure, etc), but it doesn't have much wow-factor at all - the lighting is a bit dull, the grassy area is bare, etc. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the exact explanation of the situation indeed this is the best position and time. As for the lighting, you describe as a dull, this is the moment in the morning when the sun starts touching the front facade. An hour later and the crowd become bigger, an hour earlier there are not so many people but the facade is in darker shadow.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per Diliff (a nice summary of these annoying little things which architectural shots in busy places). It's a bit cold of a picture and I wish there were more green as well, but this probably would have lower the EV which is more important over here. - Blieusong (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support very good framing and timing of the year and happy to see the human scale well captured as well, but I think a bit more light on the façade would have made it even better. I altered slightly the caption to link to the article about the building and be more encyclopedic in style. Hope you don't mind. --Elekhh (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support per others. Also I'm pretty sure it has a minor clockwise tilt. The verticals also look to bow out a bit - perhaps some correctable lens distortion? --jjron (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought it had a clockwise tilt as well... until I checked it with an onscreen straightedge. It's actually quite level. I think there may be an optical illusion going on with the trees and sky. Regarding the tilted out sides... yes, they definitely tilt out. The photo is also taken from slightly off-center. If you're going to take the time for such a nice shot, is it too much trouble to shift a foot or two left or right to get the shot dead on? JBarta (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I did check it against a straight edge (roof and veranda level) and thought it had a very minor tilt, but it was only a quick and rough check so am willing to be corrected if someone has checked more carefully. Hmmm, if it does bow a bit, maybe that explains a perceived tilt... --jjron (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nice building and snap, but looking at the articles, they are very skimpy and this shot not really supporting much. (low tie-in to content IOW).TCO (Reviews needed) 15:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That's an invalid reason for oppose, just because the articles are "very skimpy" is not a valid grouns for oppose. Being a picture of the building that SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library the article is about, makes this about the most relevant picture you can have for the article, which is all that is necessary for that part of the criteria. This oppose probably should be struck since it's simply an oppose on the quality/quantity of the articles it is in and the relevance of the picture for it's main article is pretty clear. In the future TCO, please try to keep your votes within the constrains of established promotion criteria and conventions... If you have any questions on any rule or if you think something should or shouldn't be promoted like this, then start with a comment, ask for others opinions on it first, or use the talk page. The goal of this project is to get quality high value images for our articles, and as been shown time and time again, a stub that has a FP is VERY likely to get improved well beyond a stub. VASTLY better chance of a stub with a FP to be improved then a stub without. — raekyt 13:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's right, the contributors of good photos are not responsible for the development of the articles and all the problems in the Wikimedia as a whole.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Good image, and I understand why it had to be taken this time of year. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support per Diliff. Nice job, even if the end-product is a little underwhelming. J Milburn (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:National Library - Sofia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Salman Khurshid

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 17:09:38 (UTC)

Original – Salman Khurshid, Indian politician belonging to the Indian National Congress. He is the Cabinet Minister of the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of Minority Affairs

Reason

Good quality, light, isolation and EV. The first and only picture of him on wiki. We have few FPs of politicians from countries apart from the US and I doubt any from India.

Articles in which this image appears

Salman Khurshid, Jan Lokpal Bill, Cabinet of India

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support -- I'm less than keen on the pose. Is he known for being somewhat stiff? Such a portrait of Barack Obama, for example, would probably have low EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom, the glasses reflections have been managed well. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want to diminish author's merit (the portrait is nice) but as far as I remember, glasses have anti reflection coating, so I don't see what had to be managed here. - Blieusong (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• They don't in general, though one might expect a politician to own a pair that do. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• This one pair does for sure, because of the greenish reflections. - Blieusong (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• TO be honest, I didn't do anything to handle the reflections :-) Benh, if the portrait is nice, a support would be welcome ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 03:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Something like that? support. I like the background also by the way. - Blieusong (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Strikingly looks like Jean-Pierre Raffarin (ex French prime minister that most over here won't know I'm pretty sure ;) ). - Blieusong (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, good portrait. EV of a portrait kinda is what it is, unless it's a continually photographed subject like (per Crisco's comment) Obama. Chick Bowen 04:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose nice and well, but a simply boring and not featurable centered composition for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Until we have more/better pictures of people, I have to try to push this stuff. I am skeptical, generally, of the argument for en-Wiki to be more multicultural (we cover what our readers care about), but this article gets 7000+ views per month (notable).TCO (Reviews needed) 15:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is a terrible example of a 'portrait'. It's very snapshotty, (ISO800 should not be needed! and teh DOF is too shallow, focus falloff around the face and no reason to as there is nothing to put out of focus in the background) there has been no real thought put into the image. The disturbing refelections on the glasses should have been dealt with. His glasses aren't even on straight, his tie is crooked, many many issues here. JFitch (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • An image should not be judged by its metadata. If discernible noise is present then you may cite high ISO. Regarding the glasses and tie, this was not an official photograph taken in a studio. The minister was to take pictures with some other VIPs and I had just a few seconds from when the minister sat till when the others sat in a somewhat dark area. Regarding your comment on being a terrible portrait, I showed the image to numerous people all of who praised it as one of the best they had seen. The comments from photographers like JJ and Benh strengthen my argument --Muhammad(talk) 22:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly, especially considering the conditions (and that explains his disgruntled look too). Since India has Crown Copyright, his official portrait won't be free until all of us are very old men and women. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
      • And thats fine. I'm judging by featured picture standards here. You may well have the best possible picture for the circumstances, however if those circumstances didn't allow for a good enough portrait then it doesn't matter, and shouldn't be featured. The metadata is clear in what is being seen. It IS noisey, however the effect has been greatly reduced by a large amount of downsampling to make the image smaller. (It's not even a quarter of the size that the taken image would have been at). And The focus issues I noticed instantly. JFitch (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - by Alchemist. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom Ahirwav (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Salman Khurshid portrait.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shivaji Maharaja

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 16:49:40 (UTC)

Original – Statue of Shivaji Maharaj at Raigad fort, Maharashtra

Reason

Good quality, colors, composition. Brings to life a boring statue

Articles in which this image appears

Chhatrapati, Raigad Fort, Shivaji

Creator

Cj.samson

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The post processing has left a very visible halo in the sky. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Poor framing, with the statue only in the bottom two thirds of the picture and the base somewhat clipped. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too tight crop at the bottom. --Elekhh (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maharaj article very well developed and very high view (good), but this photo not used much in the other two and not that crucial to the first. Mostly opposing for photo reasons. Framing. Seems not square?TCO (Reviews needed) 15:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't support the image, as above. However, I love the colours and the subject; I think it's a really good picture, of an interesting subject; just not FP material. J Milburn (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Subcomandante Marcos

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 15:14:13 (UTC)

Original – Subcomandante Marcos, 1996, spokesperson and rebel leader of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico.

Reason

An exceptional image. Impossible to tell its era or location without context.

Articles in which this image appears

Subcomandante Marcos, Zapatista Army of National Liberation

FP category for this image

People/Political

Creator

Jose Villa

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support Interesting photo with his mask-transcending pipe, but the black-and-whiteness downplays the EV a bit. Brandmeister t 16:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Low EV from being black and white, horse is blurry, resolution is on the low side. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support. This is actually a pretty good example of propaganda photography. B&W, shallow focus, enhanced contrast, etc. are all designed to give a heroic look. I think the comments above are treating it as a portrait, which it isn't. That said, I kind of agree about the horse. Chick Bowen 04:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very encyclopedic and probably a hard pic to get, but I actually like the cropped head shot better (see article).TCO (Reviews needed) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sunset at sea

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 18:37:34 (UTC)

Original – The sun, about a minute before astronomical sunset. Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal.

Reason

This image has been leading Sunset for almost three years now and was chosen for its encyclopaedic value, among a set of excellent images, after a long discussion (see here). I believe it finally deserves the FP status.

Articles in which this image appears

Sunset, Sunset (color)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Beautiful image. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support fully deserves a round at WP, after WC.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Decent pic and I agree with showing the actual sun disappearing, (the action) vice the alternates that are after sunset. Hope we do not have a bazillion similar shots featured.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • We have none as far as I now.... Alvesgaspar (talk)
    • That's because snapping a pretty picture is easy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a great sunset pic, not just a sunset. Conditions were good and someone was lucky to be there with a good camera and knowledge of photography ;) --Paolo Costa 21:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It's a pretty decent sunset, well photographed. --jjron (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Sunset 2007-1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Banded Lapwing Set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 11:53:25 (UTC)

Original – Banded Lapwing adult (Vanellus tricolor), Gretna, Tasmania, Australia

Original – Banded Lapwing juvenile (Vanellus tricolor), Gretna, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

This species is much less common, and less aggressive than the other Australian Lapwing species (commonly known as "Plovers"). These image show the important plumage well. I used my car as a movable hide. I'm nominating both as a set (since apparently it makes a difference).

Articles in which this image appears

Banded Lapwing

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support both -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Value in both images. A shame that the article is a stub --Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support x2 -- Both are of high quality and have good EV. Support giving the article to a DYKer who likes birds. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support adult only, Oppose juvenile and set. Weak support on adult as the darker colours especially seem a bit noisy (unless that's the natural appearance of the feathers; if it is I could be swayed to full support). And while I inherently oppose sets, do we really think the juvenile would pass on its own? Thus oppose that regardless. --jjron (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I actually like the juvenile shot better for illustrative purposes, whatever the technical aspects of the photo are. Not crazy about the aspect ratio and large head room on the adult shot. (in terms of use in an article's text). The very end of the beak seems a little fuzzy as well. Not meant to put down your work with the car hide and all. Really respect that. And I want to send you into the wild to shoot some sports and celebrity photos. TCO (Reviews needed) 15:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Only 4.5 support. Might be worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Great Crested Grebe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 11:49:18 (UTC)

Original – Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus), Lake Dulverton, Oatlands, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

Various subspecies of this bird appear across Asia and Europe. It is certainly Australia's largest and most attractive grebe. Not that many are found in Tasmania. Years ago they used to breed at Lake Dulverton, where this photo was taken, but the lake had been dry for a number of years because of a drought. Fortunately, there is water in the lake again, and a number of these Great Crested Grebe are around. A few trips and considerable patience in a hide has allowed me to get this photo.

Articles in which this image appears

Great Crested Grebe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support lovely Grebe --Cj.samson (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Nice! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support -- A little bit of light being reflected from the neck feathers. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support colorful subject and nice exposure (bright and dark feathers sill retain details). I would just have cropped the left side a bit to apply what I once read in a photography book (to place the eye on that "sweet" spot, 1/3 height from the top border, 1/3 width from left border). Hmm maybe I do need rest. - Blieusong (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Well captured, good detail, and value that the natural background is still recognisable as not completely blurred. --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Very appealing how the bird is looking at us and has that cowlick on it's head.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Podiceps cristatus 2 - Lake Dulverton.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gary Johnson

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 00:10:33 (UTC)

Original – Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico and 2012 U.S. presidential candidate.

Alternative - more contrast. Edited by User:Gage

Reason

A clear and subtly expressive portrait of the subject. Also without an awful backdrop like so many U.S. politician images.

Articles in which this image appears

Gary Johnson, Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2012, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, Our America Initiative, New Mexico gubernatorial election, 1994 (alternative used)

FP category for this image

People/Political

Creator

Ron Hill Imagery

• Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support original: Good picture, good contrast. Oppose alternative. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: This sort of shit pisses me off, especially as I'm the one who uploaded it: Why in hell is Gage's ridiculous modification saved as the "original" (hell, why hasn't that thing been deleted yet?), and the photo that we were sent by the copyright holder uploaded as a "modification"? Oppose until that is sorted out. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait, I need some clarification: you reverted Gage's edit, so is the modified one (nominated as the "Original" here) the one that is modified and the original ("alternativ" show now) the original? Spencer^T♦C 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I reverted Gage's edit because, with none of the due respect, if he's going to upload shit like that, he can do it elsewhere, not over the top of decent pictures. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Gage has not reverted again. Are either of the edits okay with you, or is it still an oppose? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose limited EV as by any staged portrait. Any image of him at a rally or other public event would have higher EV. --Elekhh (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support original. Until we do a better job on portraits of people I need to support these kinds of pics (when well done). IOW, when every celebrity is getting us a pic this quality, I will stop.TCO (Reviews needed) 07:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not enough support. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Petra tombs

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2012 at 00:34:17 (UTC)

Original – Sandstone rock-cut tombs of Petra

Reason

An adequately good photo of one of the Petra features, EV

Articles in which this image appears

Rock-cut tombs, Sandstone, Petra

FP category for this image

Places/Interiors

Creator

Etan J. Tal

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 00:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Question it's a beautiful photo but where is the rock cut tomb? Pine^talk 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Those white and grey protrusions raising from the ground. Brandmeister t 11:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not really seeing what it is supposed to illustrate. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Painted Cliffs.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I was referring to Rock-cut tombs and Petra my comment. Yes, it is sandstone, but there are many shots of natural features, architecture or rock samples that can do better than this snapshot. I don't see how the Maria image is relevant, yes, it is sandstone too, but it's EV doesn't belong in sandstone either, though I'd argue it would be no weaker than the nominated image for that article. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with JJ Harrison that I'm not sure what the EV is here. Pine^talk 20:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pretty pic, but the sandstone striations are confusing. Not sure if the emphasis is on that or on the tomb part of it. (think this is same issue as others.)TCO (Reviews needed) 07:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as the Good Shepherd (Stained glass)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2012 at 13:39:31 (UTC)

Original – Stained glass at St John's Ashfield in Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus as the Good Shepherd.

Reason

Stunning colour, high EV for a modern-day depiction of Jesus

Articles in which this image appears

Jesus (lead image), Depiction of Jesus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Alfred Handel, photographed by Toby Hudson.

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment A much better picture is this, which is featured on Commons. Unfortunately it is only used in one Wikipedia article. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for the nomination. I think this full body crop has the higher value for an encyclopedia article (and perhaps a better colour balance). The other has fractionally more detail in the close-up crop, but at 18MPx, this one is way higher than our FP standards, and is easily suitable for any web application. --99of9 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support One of the best depictions of the Good Shepherd, but I don't know whether the blurriness is natural here. Brandmeister t 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really see exceptional EV here. What distinguishes this from the multitude of other depictions of Jesus? I'm not too keen on the shot itself either. The backlighting doesn't work for me. I prefer the front-lit version. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• For the shot itself, I must say I prefer the backlit version. More striking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose decent depiction but it's used in only two articles and this particular window has little historical significance. Pine^talk 08:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The version featured on Commons is significantly sharper and better detailed (yes, the nommed image is bigger overall, but in terms of the actual section of the window depicted the other one is actually marginally larger, so that certainly doesn't account for the difference). Colour balance is also significantly different; 99of9 mentioned this, and while I don't know which one has truer colours, the colours in the other version appear to be richer. --jjron (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Badly clipped blacks and blown highlights, and it just isn't as sharp as I'd expect. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Marginally important and marginal photography. Still a "good" pic. but not FP. (I should probably look and see if we have any previous stained glass or religious pictures as that might sway me...).TCO (Reviews needed) 07:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Noisy Miner

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2012 at 13:21:03 (UTC)

Original – The Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) one of four species in the genus Manorina; endemic to south-eastern Australia

Reason

Nice and sharp, encyclopedic. High resolution, good illustration of the subject. It's a new GA, so I think we should have a chance to show it off.

Articles in which this image appears

Noisy Miner

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Its significant tail is out of focus; distracting elements on the ground, not the least of which is that stick emanating from its posterior. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Off-topic discussion has been moved to the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above comments. Too much distraction in foreground along with focus problems. JFitch (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't seem that much of an advance over the many other pictures in article.TCO (Reviews needed) 07:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Christ Pantocrator icon, 6th Century

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2012 at 05:45:44 (UTC)

Original – The oldest known icon of Christ Pantocrator, dating from the 6th century. The two different facial expressions on either side emphasize Christ's dual nature as both divine and human.

Reason

Used in many articles, this photo shows the oldest known icon of Christ Pantocrator, dating from the 6th century.

Articles in which this image appears

Christ, Christ Pantocrator, Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, Depiction of Jesus, Icon, Religious image, History of painting, Western painting

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

unknown painter, photo by Testus

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 05:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support -- Seems kinda blurry (at that size, shouldn't it be more than 150 kb?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a version with higher resolution (1,100×2,127). Brandmeister t 23:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• This version looks a little better. Odd how such a small file can still be fairly sharp. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Source for the new version? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• [2]. Brandmeister t 11:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support The new version is quite low in resolution for this sort of thing. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I am moved by the original art work itself. Seems notable given the date and also the caption is very well done (yes, captions are part of the presentation!) TCO (Reviews needed) 07:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Swayed by TCO. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why this has been "slightly cut down" (full-size version). Also not sure of colors/lighting: this looks a significantly different from the old version. Would prefer a larger version too. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Came close, 4.5S vs. 1O. Possible future renom. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a reat artwork, just as a painting. Impressed that some dude in the 500s was this good.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dark-eyed Junco

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2012 at 05:27:44 (UTC)

Original – Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis hyemalis) female, Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada.

Reason

very large photo, already featured on Commons, lead image for two articles

Articles in which this image appears

Dark-eyed Junco, Junco

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Cephas

• Support as nominator --Pine^talk 05:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Striking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support It is a pretty impressive picture, (as Crisco said above, "Striking"). I don't like how, starting right at the top of its wing, it slowly starts to drift out of focus (until it is completely out of focus when it reaches its tail). It takes away from the pictures integrity. Dusty777 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral Lots of the bird is in shadow (fill flash can help with that) and the pose is awkward. Out of focus areas with small birds are almost a fact of life though (the photographer has stopped down a lot as is). It is otherwise technically well executed. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support per JJ, and I also find the bokeh a little unappealing and distracting. --jjron (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Color of background means there is little contrast with subject. Gray on gray. Several images in article have better color contrast of subject and background.TCO (Reviews needed) 07:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I don't buy the criticisms made here - shadow issue doesn't seem too strong, and the bird is clearly differentiated from its background at its entire outline. DOF issue has been explained by JJ. I think we'll eventually have to have a set for this species as no single image (taken in nature, at least!) can represent the colour and patterning variation, geographic and otherwise. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support < 5 Makeemlighter (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoover Dam Panorama

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 21:40:28 (UTC)

Original – Hoover Dam panoramic view from the Arizona side showing the penstock towers, the Nevada-side spillway entrance and the Mike O'Callaghan – Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge, also known as the Hoover Dam Bypass.

Alt-1 Further dust spot removal

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, good view of multiple features of the dam, good resolution, informative caption.

Articles in which this image appears

Hoover Dam

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Kuczora

• Support as nominator --Dusty777 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as is A restitch might fix it. There are dust spots in the air, and the verticals are not vertical. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where the verticals are not vertical? It'll give me a better idea of what your looking at. Dusty777 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The water intake tower things are one such example. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• now Support. Dust spots removed + small vertical correction on the left. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I removed some more dust-spots from Alchemists version, then re-uploaded as Alt-1. Dusty777 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support Original, Oppose Alt-1. Alternative suffers from too high compression. O.J. (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • On second thought, there are no serious problems with the original. O.J. (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Original JJ Harrison (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Does that mean the original oppose can be stricken? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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.

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

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.

Blender house picture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2012 at 12:30:50 (UTC)

Picture of a house, created using Blender

Reason

Although the image is admittedly striking, it's EV is fairly low. In the Blender article it is only in a gallery, while in Computer-generated imagery it is next to a paragraph about using software for architectural purposes... which this image would be useless for.

Articles this image appears in

Blender (software), Computer-generated imagery

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ImpressiveBlender3DWork

Nominator

Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per Crisco's reasoning. Interestingly, as an aside, we do have high-quality professional productions of material using Blender. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is for the new year. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per my extensive reasoning when this went through Picture Peer Review and FPC in early 2008. I think it's a fine image, but unillustrative of Blender. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist. Usage.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• No arguments for keeping. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Horse animation

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 11:58:47 (UTC)

An animated horse created by a Wikipedia editor based on photographs by Eadweard Muybridge

Reason

As noted in a previous candidacy, user generated art is generally not considered to have high enough EV now; as such, this old nomination should probably be delisted.

Articles this image appears in

Animation, 12 basic principles of animation, and several more.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Animhorse.gif, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/animhorse

Nominator

Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per the the 2007 delist discussion. --jjron (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep — Hasn't it already been here several times before? – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, so what? There's no ban on renominating images for delisting. If you believe the image still meets the criteria, that's fine, but please offer your reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I think his point is that no new argument has been made for delisting. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It hasn't been here for four years which is a long time in FPC - things change. Besides which Crisco's reason actually is a new argument. I didn't support it based on that argument, personally I simply still agree with my own reasoning from four years ago, but others may agree with his new point. --jjron (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • You're right; consensus can change. I was just trying to clarify what I thought TA's point was. I'll meet you halfway with the rest: it's a new argument, but it's not a convincing one. I don't recall any consensus that user-generated art doesn't have enough EV. File:Glass ochem dof2.png, File:Lone House.jpg, File:Glasses 800 edit.png, and File:Terragen render.jpg are all user-generated art. Creating art through software doesn't seem much different from animation. The EV comes from what the image shows, not who made it. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
          • For animation, with a goodly number of professionally drawn cartoons in the public domain, I'd think it is fair to ask for high quality. We don't go adding user created art to postmodernism willy-nilly and then make it featured, do we? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
          • @Makeem, I'm not sure if we're meeting halfway, I think we agree; I agree with you re the user generated art thing, and I also don't know of anywhere where a consensus was reached saying it was unfeaturable. I was merely pointing out that it was a new argument re this image, and some others may agree with it (and as I said above, it's not what I've based my delist vote on). --jjron (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
            • We were meeting halfway before I re-wrote my comment and left that part. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist; this sort of cartoon is really not representative of the best work of a 2010s encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Best work? Maybe not, but isn't it pretty good as an illustration of animation and rotoscoping? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe, maybe not. I think not, but, regardless, an image needs to be "among Wikipedia's best work" to meet the featured picture criteria. This fails. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Certainly not overall best work, but a 2-minute search convinced me it's still one of our better images illustrating animation. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per J Milburn. Spencer^T♦C 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist reluctantly. As with the pirate below, I feel this image still has decent EV, but it too no longer reaches the level of FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist. Its value seems very narrow to me, since most such cartoonish animations would not be made backwards from a series of photographs like this. It really only illustrates the very specific, almost unique technique that was used to create it. Chick Bowen 04:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delist Agree that an example of professional illustration would be superior (even if not artistically, example wise).TCO (Reviews needed) 03:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I think it makes a good illustration for a couple of those articles, and don't see an issue with the cartoon style. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrrr!

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 11:52:13 (UTC)

A user-created SVG drawing of a pirate

Reason

As noted in a previous candidacy, user generated art is generally not considered to have high enough EV now; as such, this old nomination should probably be delisted. Two other pictures by this editor, File:Mad scientist.svg and File:Villainc.svg, have also been delisted previously.

Articles this image appears in

Eyepatch Piracy Pirates in popular culture

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pirate

Nominator

Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a good depiction of "pirates in popular culture", a subject that is open to artistic interpretation. I don't think a photo would be any more valuable. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The main issue is that it is not by a notable artist. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not being presented as an art form. As such the only criteria it must meet are those of this project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. per above. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist, as this most certainly would not pass today. While I agree with Saffron's claim that this is not being presented as art, I fail to see where this image has any EV- Mahahahaneapneap points to pirates in popular culture, but there, it is merely thrown alongside a list of appearances of pirates in comics and manga. It's not illustrating anything in particular, and the article would be no worse-off without it. J Milburn (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Delist:Agree with your reasoning, File:Villainc.svg had a similar fate, now these cartoons don't meet today's criterias. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per nom and per above. Notwithstanding the low ev concerns, there are also more artistically distinctive and detailed images of pirates in popular culture. Spencer^T♦C 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist I actually think this has value for showing stereotypical characteristics of a pirate, but it's just not FP level anymore. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delist. I don't really see how this illustrates pirates in popular culture, since this pirate is not taken from popular culture but is rather one person's interpretation of the general traits that pirates in popular culture have. A better reproduction than those we have of one of the Wyeth illustrations from Treasure Island would seem to me more appropriate. Chick Bowen 04:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delist per arguments above. Also, I think we need to be a little concerned about circularity with topics like "cultural depictions of". certainly we should exclude done for wiki from that sort of topic.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delist per above arguments. Clegs (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Sri Mulyani Indrawati

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 05:44:08 (UTC)

Original – Sri Mulyani Indrawati, former Indonesian Finance Minister and current Managing Director of the World Bank Group

Reason

High quality, PD, and an underrepresented subject (Indonesian people)

Articles in which this image appears

Sri Mulyani Indrawati; Second United Indonesia Cabinet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

International Monetary Fund

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support good portrait of a notable person. Pine^talk 12:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose good facial expression and colour scheme, but low limited EV as is still a simple official passport-photo style image not revealing anything about the subject's occupation (notability), character or any particular historical event. --Elekhh (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Many of our FPs don't show the subject in a work environment. Some are promotional shots, some are posed and shot by Wikipedians, some are from Flickr and have a random tree as a background, and some are official portraits from the IMF. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I know that is the status quo, but my position has been consistent on this over the years, and I acknowledge that is a minority opinion. I find images which show more than just passive physical appearance, have more EV, like this or this or this. Maybe was harsh to say "low EV" so reworded that. --Elekhh (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I'd kill maim beg give away free chocolate sundaes to get a good picture of Garin Nugroho, Nia Di Nata, or Ucu Agustin] on set but... meh, not likely. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Boring but undoubted EV --Muhammad(talk) 03:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very nicely done - per nom. Royalbroil 03:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Elekhh Featured should be more than just good enough. Featured should never be boring. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:Indrawati, Sri Mulyani (IMF).jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sony Alpha 700

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 00:21:11 (UTC)

Original – The Sony Alpha 700, a digital single-lens reflex camera released in 2007.

ALT1 – More white space, not so tight of a crop

Reason

High resolution, good EV, PD, attractive colouring

Articles in which this image appears

Sony Alpha 700

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Nicely executed image, and perhaps valuable, but not FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Care to say why? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Even as a photographer I find nothing compelling in a simple picture of a camera. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • But put it this way: If you were tasked with providing a photo of the camera for FPC, what would you do differently/better? You might not find it personally compelling, but could you make it more compelling? If so, how? Some subjects are inherently more difficult to make compelling, but for those subjects, we should try to make allowances. All subjects are (in theory) equally important. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • No, not all subjects are equally important. If they were we would't be deleting reams of content every day for not being notable. That's not my point though. I have stated quite clearly this is a valuable image. I just don't think because something is valuable it should be featured. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
          • How can this be both a valuable image and an unimportant subject? Although we delete articles for having non-notable subjects, the threshold is pretty low and provided there are enough sources, one can take any subject to Featured Article. We don't allow people to oppose FAs because they aren't interested in a subject, or because they think the subject is unimportant. Perhaps we need to reconsider the "compelling" criterion because it may conflict with "encyclopaedic". We can't just feature beautiful valleys or exotic animals. There's little difference between this and the many featured fruit-on-white-background images we have. As a product shot goes, this is hard to beat. It would be a poor subject if the camera wasn't in mint condition and completely clean. I think Sony would be happy with it on their website or in an advert in a glossy magazine -- though the advert would probably have a lens. If product shots of man-made objects should be featurable, the we should judge them against the best commercial equivalent shots rather than whether we find that product interesting as a subject. Colin°^Talk 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Commons has projects that denote "Quality Images" for technical excellence; "Valued Images" because they capture something important/useful; and "Featured Images" that are primarly a combination of the first two and must have a “wow factor”. I think this is a more coherent approach to image classification. This images fails the last test. Please spare me the obvious fact that this is not the Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Why should we spare you "the obvious fact that this is not the Commons". That's the key point that IMO you are missing. FP on WP are article-based. They "are images that add significantly to articles" and "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" (my italics). Whereas, on Commons, the FPs are "some of the finest on Commons" -- no subject or article requirement. The driving force behind FP on WP should be illustrating our articles with fine pictures, not just providing an educational stock image bank. It is hard to see how our Sony Alpha 700 article could be better illustrated by a single picture than this one. I would be very disappointed if there were articles on WP that couldn't possibly be illustrated by a featured pic, because some folk didn't find the subject compelling. Colin°^Talk 10:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                • Not to be overly cynical, but the subject matter has held back FP nominations before. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • The issues there were quite different: how to judge artwork, especially original artwork done for WP. Colin°^Talk 12:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                • I disagree, the image does not contribute significantly to the article. It just shows what any reader would have imagined anyway. Certainly the text of the article in no way references the image in a meaningful way. Sure it is representative but so would a picture of a table fork in an article on forks. Should this be featured? Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • Wow I don't know how to respond to such a misunderstanding of what an illustration is for. How could someone possibly imagine what that camera looks like without an image? What has the text of the article got to do with it? I mean, why would anyone bother to take pictures of everyday items if the response was "why did you take this -- I already know or can imagine what one of them looks like". That fork picture is stupid and I've removed it from the article. Yes, I think it should be possible to take a featured picture of a fork. We've already got File:Nail-clippers-variety.jpg. Look on a stock photo site. You'll see some careful pictures of forks that people will pay money for. This is a valid subject for high-quality professional photography and should be featurable. Colin°^Talk 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • By deleting that image you just made my point for me. Moreover, I am not misunderstanding what an illustration is... both the fork and the camera are simple illustrations of their subject matter. Neither should be FP because they are boring. Here is a fork picture that is not boring and does a much better job of illustrating what a fork is used for and how it is used. Fork me! Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • Well, no, I don't see how deleting a lame 2-colour silhouette of a fork is relevant to a FP discussion. Although the picture you chose illustrates the use of a fork in action, which is I agree valuable and more interesting idea than a static image, no picture editor would choose it to illustrate an article on forks. The primary subject of the image is the girl. The secondary subject of the image is eating. To be an FP of a fork, the fork needs to remain the subject. Look at all the bird pictures we have. Very few are interesting pictures in an artistic sense. We feature them largely for their technical and encyclopaedic merit. Just because you find camera equipment boring. If we took that attitude, we've have folk opposing bird photos with "yawn. we have enough birds already. I know what a bird is." Coming back to the camera. How would one make a camera interesting? Perhaps advertisers know? Well they just use pictures like this. Go to Canon or Nikon's home pages. You'll see the same picture as this, just with a different badge. Nikon have theirs tumbling about. That's about as unboring as you can get and keep the camera as the subject. Colin°^Talk 17:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • Well, of course you don't see my point. I think that was clear from the start. Nevertheless, you deleted a boring static image of a fork and I showed you one that was much more compelling. I wasn't arguing for it to be FP, but it was closer to being FP than any static image of a plain fork on a white background. That is the case with this camera. It is not my job to show you an image of a camera that is FP. Even if it was and I couldn't make it unboring I would not expect it to be FP just because it was well executed. I'll go back to finding some pretty scenes to snap now. Cheers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support either I like orange and black color duo. There are already two featured images of cameras and this could be an equally decent addition. Brandmeister t 21:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Perfect example. JFitch (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support This kind of photograph is not easy. Certainly harder than finding some pretty scenery and pressing the button. Just making sure the item is clean and free of dust and fluff is a significant hassle, never mind lighting and backgrounds. Very good. Colin°^Talk 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Colin --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 07:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support well executed. Not sure about which way to go on the whitespace though.©Geni 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Colin's reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:Sony-Alpha-A700-Front.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Super Nintendo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 00:05:45 (UTC)

Original – The best selling console of its era, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System continues to be popular with video game players, some who make their own homebrew ROMs.

Figure 2: Detail of wire where thickness and edge clarity are issues

Reason

Beautiful with high resolution, good EV, and a very important product.

Articles in which this image appears

Super Nintendo Entertainment System + 6

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Replaced abbrev SNES with "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" in caption. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Sorry, force of habit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside, there is an equally high quality image of the Super Famicom by the same editor. They could become a set. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I did get your email by the way, and will respond in the next few days. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Well executed but not compelling. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It is an excellent picture, the clarity and resolution are great! But there is just one problem I can't get past:

Is the encyclopedic value good enough? Sure the SNES was the best selling console of its generation, but that goes for any console at any time. What I am saying is, if that is the main value to Wikipedia (that it was the best selling console of its generation), shouldn't pictures of the NES (Best selling of the 3rd generation), Playstation 1 (Best selling of the 5th generation), Playstation 2 (Best selling of the 6th generation), Wii (Best selling of the 7th generation), and the Nintendo DS (Best selling handheld console) also be featured for that same reason? It would not seem fair to not feature those consoles also, as they have the same EV. Dusty777 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not following this reasoning. A featured picture of a bird has not stopped us from promoting a featured picture of another bird species (or even sometimes a substantially different view of the same species.) Rmhermen (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I also fail to see how you consider the EV not high enough. The simple fact that a console has its own article is enough EV for a picture of said console. That being said, even at Commons with Valued Image (which only allows one image in each scope) these consoles could be nominated separately. The only reason I didn't nominate all of them at once is to avoid swamping the FPC page with Evan-Amos' work. If these three (this one, the camera, and the NES Gun) are well received, I'm sure myself or another editor will start picking through the other pictures contributed by Evan-Amos. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I also fail to understand this argument. Let's consider this subject/article/image EV value on its own -- the other games consoles don't affect this image.

• weak oppose I personally don't like the image with no shadows at all. File:SNES-Model-2-Set.jpg is better for having retained some shadow (thought the shadow of the cable has still been removed). However, the use of an eraser round the wire hasn't been carefully done and the wire appears to change thickness along its length. Has the perspective been adjusted -- just looks a wee bit odd? Otherwise it is a good picture, sharp from front to back. Colin°^Talk 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. The white background is fine, but the "punch-out" look is weird, IMO. It would look better with some natural shadows. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I really like this photographer's work, so I say well done to Evan Amos. The lack of shadow is not an issue to me, nor is the "compelling" issue. It's as encyclopedic as it can get (compare to many of our photos of fruit; nothing special, they just represent the subjects well). That said, I think the comment above made about the thickness of the wires could be an issue (see Fig 2). If it's not an optical illusion, it looks like the wire was erased a bit when it shouldn't have been. Same goes with the edge of the wire in the upper-left quadrant. No offense meant to the photographer. For all I know he may not be intending for his images to be nominated here, so the work he does produce is way more than 'good enough' for their humble use in the encyclopedia. If those issues can either be explained or fixed, I'd be happy to support. upstateNYer 18:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm thinking it may be shadows, but I'll ask him. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• He says he thinks it was shadows; he has taken another picture, which may as well be nominated separately later. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NES Zapper

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 23:54:22 (UTC)

Original – The Nintendo Entertainment System Zapper,

Reason

High quality, beautifully posed, PD, and a notable object... brings me back to my youth.

Articles in which this image appears

NES Zapper, Nintendo Entertainment System

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Evan-Amos

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Well executed studio photo in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Great for a catalogue but rather bland to be calling it a FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• This goes for the "opposes" on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Camera nominations as well: In an encyclopedic article on a product, the most encyclopedic possible picture is one with nothing distracting in the background. As such, we have featured pictures of nailclippers and sandals; not all topics can be stuck in the mud and still be FP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your point makes a great case for these to be promoted as Valued Images on Commons but I still think FP on Wikipedia should be something more than that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that; although I'm pretty sure that pictures of how these things usually ended up (chipped plastic, tangled and frayed cords) would definitely not qualify for FP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you can take comfort in the fact my opinion of what should be FP appears to be in minority :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There are some technical flaws. The shadow below the gun barrel and above the plug is erased and there a smudge over to the left. It is a rather impotent shot, for a weapon -- on its side and unplugged. A more dynamic angle or being hand-held might improve it. Colin°^Talk 22:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding being hand-held: I think that would destroy some of the EV, as we would not be able to see the grip. As this is not an actual weapon but a video game accessory, I don't think having it aimed at Duck Hunt while the player scowls at the dog would be necessary (although admittedly a hit on YouTube). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the technical issues are resolved, you can change my oppose to neutral (should I forget or not manage to return here during the hols). It is very well taken but looks a bit too much like an ebay auction photo -- but I wouldn't oppose over that. Colin°^Talk 08:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose It's a tough subject in that sense, but I do think it would benefit from the top/barrel being sufficiently visible to document the absence/presence of aiming aids, and remote control or decorative elements. Seems to be something going on. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Some of the shadows seem to be missing which confuses the perspective. I think having it on a totally white background is fine, but it should still have all the natural shadows. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

West Front of US Capitol

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 07:07:59 (UTC)

Original – The western front of the United States Capitol, in Washington DC

ALT1 – Very slight tilt correct.

ALT2 – Tilt, levels and highlights corrected. Edited original uncropped file.

ALT3 - Same highlight and levels correction as ALT2, but with further tilt correction and noise reduction.

Reason

High technical resolution, undeniably PD, great colour and EV.

Articles in which this image appears

United States Capitol (lead image) + 17 more

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Architect of the Capitol

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• My support goes for everything. ALT3 is especially nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - appears to be leaning slightly to the right (as in, the left-hand-side is higher) which I find mighty distracting. Will support with this resolved, however. Nikthestoned 12:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• ALT1 added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

0.4 degrees... Heh, would have thought it was more! Support. Nikthestoned 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alt-1 Great picture! Dusty777 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Question: is it just my monitor, or does alt1 look a little more washed out than the original? Clegs (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • They look the same to me. Try opening the images in separate tabs and flipping back and forth. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • To be quite honest I don't see a difference in colour between the original, ALT1, and ALT2. I didn't touch the colours when fixing the tilt, just your basic rotate then crop. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Scratch that, I see the difference between ALTs 1 and 2, but not ALT1 and the original. To sum up the differences between ALTs 1 and 2, ALT2 is slightly darker and has a (slightly) tighter crop. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• ALT2 added. In addition to the tilt, color balance and highlights have been adjusted. Original uncropped file was used for editing. O.J. (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment File:Capitol Building Full View.jpg is far superior (as is the night shot File:US Capitol Building at night Jan 2006.jpg). Both are current FPs, but the first one is, surprisingly, not used in the Capitol article. No need for another FP here; just put the current one back in the lede. (FWIW, it was removed here.) Makeemlighter (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'd rather have the grounds as well. The "full" picture is extremely close-up on the building but doesn't give us much understanding of the area. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alt-2 Superior to the others offered including linked images. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support Alt-2 Better then Alt-1 as far as the color-correction goes, but the tilt is not fully corrected (Open alt-1 and alt-2 in different tabs, then flip back and forth, you should see what i mean). Once that's fixed, i will give full support. Dusty777 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the tilt is fully corrected in Alt-2. Alt-1 on the other hand seems to be slightly "over-corrected". O.J. (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all Current FPs are larger and have much more detail on the subject. This one is fairly noisy too. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Alt-3 added. OK, here's my last attempt. Levels and highlight correction about the same as in Alt-2. I did correct the tilt by a further 0.5 degrees and applied some very conservative noise reduction. O.J. (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Lysander Cutler

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 06:57:54 (UTC)

Original – Lysander Cutler, an American businessman, educator, politician, and a Union Army General during the American Civil War.

Reason

High technical quality and EV. Previous nomination was derailed when several editors said that it was an overrepresented subject, with one saying the subject wasn't notable. As it is a picture of a person with an article, I respectfully disagree.

Articles in which this image appears

Lysander Cutler, List of American Civil War Generals (Union)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Unknown, from LOC catalogue

• Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - appears to be slightly out of focus - his left ear and surrounding hair appears to be the only part that *is*... Nikthestoned 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Kalbhairav pinnacle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2011 at 19:32:33 (UTC)

Original – View of Kalbhairav pinnacle taken from the left flank edge of Konkan Kada of Harishchandragad

Edit – Sharpening reduced

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj.samson (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reason

Good quality, EV, res, wonderful colors and composition.

Articles in which this image appears

Harishchandragad

Creator

Cj.samson

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 19:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Question -- is that the fort itself? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, so from this being the lead image of the article, this should be the subject of the article. The article says "hill fort" and links to "Forts in India". Is this hill itself the one used as a fort, or...? This has to do with EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• -/ ? Still confuzzled. This picture is not of the hill fort itself, but is the lead article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support -- Okay, now I get what CJ was saying... I think something showing fortifications would have higher EV, so I still have reservations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• My weak support is good for the ALT too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• info -it's a prominent projection of Harishchandra gad,which juts out towards the southeast .This is not a fort. --Cj.samson (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the Harishchandra gad is a hill fort, since it’s strategically located and it’s the mightiest of hill forts. --Cj.samson (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes this is part of the hill fort, the hill consists of caves, peaks, temples, cliff (Konkan kada cliff) and this pinnacle is the projection of Harishchandra gad, since its strategically located , this was used to safeguard surrounding regions and there is no fort structure here to describe it as a hill fort, at the backdrop one can see the complete view of Malshej-Naneghat range. This is an important mainstay for many an empire, from the sixth century to the Marathas. --Cj.samson (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per 'Reason' mentioned by Muhammad --Cj.samson (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- Glorious image. Lots of detail. JBarta (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• CommentAny chance of a version without quite so much sharpening and perhaps a tilt fix? JJ Harrison (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. At 100% resolution, it is oversharpened. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Edit. Better at 100% now that sharpening is reduced. Seems to still have quite a lot of noise for ISO 400 though, both luminous and chroma. I find that processing RAW images through Lightroom / Adobe Camera RAW does a good job of eliminating chroma noise, and whatever luminous noise is left over can be eliminated by programs such as Noise Ninja or Neat Image. Photoshop itself isn't bad for noise reduction (especially if you are selective, applying a stronger filter on the sky than the landscape detail) either, but there are better plug ins available. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Edit JJ Harrison (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Question - Can someone explain why this particular projection is more notable than all the rest in the area? I'm having a hard time seeing the EV, and the composition looks a bit snapshot-ish. Clegs (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both. Not seeing the EV, as it's not actually showing the fort, just some mountains near the fort. Clegs (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• This projection is part of the Hill fort which juts out and it stands facing the plains (Konkan), The geographical character and rough terrain dominated by these hill ranges prevented any real subjugation by alien powers. As I mentioned earlier it’s strategically located and it’s the mightiest of hill forts, and the composition clearly depicts the terrain - the precipitous pinnacle and the vast plains. --Cj.samson (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nice view, but noisy, with unimpressive composition. Neither the image description page or the article ascribes any particular significance to this projection, so EV isn't clear. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Nice view but too noisy. This same shot with a better camera might work for FP. Pine^talk 10:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Early supporters: are you okay with the edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I Dont mind the edit. FWIW, the noise is negligible at lower res at which most images are judged. If noise is what this nomination hangs on, I can upload a denoised version --Muhammad(talk) 15:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Ok, with the edit --Cj.samson (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Truth be told, I didn't realize the original had so much noise. I should have looked at it closer. While the edit reduces the noise, it now looks a little washed out, fuzzy and less vibrant. On second look, if it's allowed, I'd prefer to change my vote on both versions to Oppose. JBarta (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. EV (no fort).TCO (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• With JBarta's vote change, this entire nom should fail. Unless someone has an objection to JBarta's vote change, I will invoke IAR and mark this "Not Promoted." Pine^talk 08:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes" is not ambiguous. We specifically changed to a fix period a year or two ago to avoid problems where the timing of a close might impact on the success of a nomination in either direction. Anyway, the solution is easy - Muhammad can upload a denoised version. JBarta should look at the image full size in the first place. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, since you (Pine) have voted, you can't close this nomination. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • JJ Harrison: OK regarding your proposed solution. Regarding who can close, I asked an experienced closer about that and he said there is no rule against a voter closing a nom. If there is a rule that says otherwise, please point me to it. Pine^talk 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
        • It would be unethical for a voter to close the nom. I will upload a denoised version of the original hopefully by tomorrow. Again I'd like to stress that judging an image at its max resolution and finding faults will only lead to people uploading downsampled images. --Muhammad(talk) 19:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
        • If there is a consensus to implement such a rule and it doesn't currently exist, that discussion belongs on the FP talk page. I am not opposed to implementing it, but as far as I can tell no such rule currently exists. I'll start the discussion on the talk page. Pine^talk 20:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Suspended pending upload of denoised version. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Update My laptop has got a broken screen, sorry but an edit from me will take a week. --Muhammad(talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• What's happening here? Almost 3 weeks already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As Muhammad has been busy I guess, I've gone ahead and applied the noise reduction myself. As it's a fairly simple uncontroversial change, I went ahead and uploaded over the top of the existing edit. If people are unhappy with that, it can be reverted and uploaded as a separate edit. But given how late in the process this nom already is, I thought it might be simpler this way. FWIW, with 5.5 supports and 3 opposes, I don't think this is a pass anyhow, and it's well beyond the nomination period now. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... I'll have to have a look when my connection is in good enough shape to look at the full size. I think Jbarta said he would support a high quality picture. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Too stale by now. Possibly worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Green Rosella

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 11:57:41 (UTC)

Original – Green Rosella (Platycercus caledonicus), Collinsvale, Tasmania, Australia.

Reason

It's a nice image of this Tasmanian Endemic. FWIW it has already been featured on commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Green Rosella

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: The image is not currently used in the linked article. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Replaced with this edit to "maintain balance". Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Forgot about that. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Southampton container port at night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 23:08:53 (UTC)

Original – Southampton container docks at night 4 second exposure.

Reason

A photo of Southampton container docks showing them lit up for 24 hour operation. Since there are no ships in port (not that common) you can clearly see the full extent of the cranes and other dockside equipment. It also shows the entire dock in a single image. Decent size, decent clarity. It hasn't been in the article for a week but it replaced one of my own images.

Articles in which this image appears

Port of Southampton

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Geni

• Support as nominator --©Geni 23:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Overly dark; a day time shot would have been even better. Admittedly rare, but not exactly FP quality. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  I've got a daytime photo File:Southampton container port daylight.JPG but I find it rather boring.©Geni 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support Kinda like the lights and stuff. Pictures at night are always pretty cool, I don't see where it has much encyclopedic value though. Dusty777 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support My opinion is a mixture of the above – It is a really nice photo, but a daytime shot may fit this scene better. Additionally, it doesn't have much Encyclopedia value, per Dusty777. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't really see the value of an empty dock, particularly when it's difficult to see much detail at night. Composition isn't really outstanding either, there's a lot of empty space at the top and bottom of the frame and it would probably benefit from a more panoramic aspect ratio. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Hardly see how this meets any of the criteria. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Assumption of the Virgin (Botticini)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 22:11:58 (UTC)

Original – Assumption of the Virgin, by Francesco Botticini

Reason

Very high EV, good scan

Articles in which this image appears

Assumption of the Virgin (Botticini), Francesco Botticini, Christian angelic hierarchy, Matteo Palmieri

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Francesco Botticini

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment -- For a 2.28 by 3.77 metres (7.5 by 12.4 ft) painting, this is fairly low resolution. Sharp, yes, but... Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Question I get the impression that this is cut off in some way, but can't seem to spot a reproduction that is any less so. Any comment or link to a version which shows the edges? JJ Harrison (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Olive Whistler

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:24:36 (UTC)

Original – Olive Whistler (Pachycephala olivacea), Melaleuca, Southwest Conservation Area, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

Despite being in the same genus as the Australian Golden Whistler and having a somewhat similar call, the behaviour of this species is quite different. The Olive Whistler seems to prefer thick vegetation and often feeds near the ground. The Golden Whistler seems to prefer feeding higher up in dryer Eucalypt forests. I think this image captures the usual habitat quite nicely.

Articles in which this image appears

Olive Whistler

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Meets all the criteria. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Somewhat narrow DOF, but otherwise excellent. --jjron (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nice image. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support -- I have to agree about the DOF; the tail and feet are blurry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 08:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice! O.J. (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pachycephala olivacea - Melaleuca.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wandering Albatross

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:18:43 (UTC)

Original – Wandering Albatross (Diomedea exulans), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

Easily the best available image, terrestrial or at sea, of this species, famous for having the longest wingspan of any living bird.

Articles in which this image appears

Wandering Albatross

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 16:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support -- Would have higher EV if he had his wings open. As usual, great technical quality... Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support -- It's a nice image, but since you mention that it is famous for having the longest wingspan for any living bird, an image showing its wings open probably would get my full support. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This sort of image lets someone identify the bird on the water or on land not flying. I think there is ultimately room for both eventually. Field guides have both. I've only got a few shots of the rump in the air, which doesn't show much from an identification point of view, though it is a cool angle in the sense that you can see how aerodynamic they are. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Great. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support works OK for identifying the bird. Pine^talk 05:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Technically solid image, good (but not amazing) EV per above. Spencer^T♦C 16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:Diomedea_exulans_-_SE_Tasmania.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Brown Thornbill

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:14:15 (UTC)

Original – Brown Thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla), Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia

Reason

Very high quality, the branches etc behind are quite typical of habitat. It is delivering food to a nest deep in a bush in my garden. I used a hide to take this photo. Thornbills are easy to spot, but often difficult to photograph since they often dart from branch to branch, and enjoy dense foliage.

Articles in which this image appears

Brown Thornbill

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very nice presentation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Somewhat iffy on the foot being out of focus, but not enough to bring me down to a weak support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Always nice to see fauna in the act of hunting/foraging, adds another dimension. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wonderful image --Cj.samson (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Perfect, meets the 8 criteria. TehGrauniad (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Promoted File:Acanthiza pusilla - Austin's Ferry.jpg --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unanimous Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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