Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
![]() | Skip to: |
![]() 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.
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.
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.
|
Featured picture tools: |
Step 1:
Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations. |
Step 2:
Create a subpage
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.
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
How to comment for Delist Images
Editing candidates
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
|
---|
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2012 at 19:40:53 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Holden_Observatory%2C_Syracuse_University.jpg/250px-Holden_Observatory%2C_Syracuse_University.jpg)
- Reason
- This image meets several points of the FPC criteria. The image is high resolution, has a public domain license, verifiable, has a complete description, and I believe is among Wikipedia's best works. I believe the photo quality has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral color balance with no artifacts from compression. The is of a building on the National Historic Places list and can be found in 3 Wikipedia articles.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Syracuse University, Syracuse University – Comstock Tract Buildings, List of Syracuse University buildings
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- ZeWrestler - self nomination
- Support as nominator --ZeWrestler Talk 19:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Framing is too tight and sky is blown... Would prefer a better angle too but not sure if it's possible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Diliff gazhiley 07:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull-looking subject, indifferently shot. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2012 at 04:53:21 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Michelangelo%27s_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg/350px-Michelangelo%27s_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg)
- Reason
- High ev as lead image, good quality, also featured on commons and Croatian and Azerbaijani wikipedias
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pietà (Michelangelo), Pietà, etc.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
- Creator
- Stanislav Traykov
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support valuable and much EV. Alborzagros (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Per Alborzagros --ZeWrestler Talk 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Small and bad angle. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support and while mine may not be an expert opinion, I'll share it. Having been inside the cathedral, I understand how difficult it was to get this shot. The light is so low in there that a standard tourist camera or setup (point and shoot or DSLR w/ no tripod) will produce horrible results. So unless the Vatican's photographer releases his edition, we won't get a better picture (I am assuming the Vatican has a photographer, and he —sorry, not likely to be a she— would have permission to take enough equipment and extra lights). The entire statue is in focus, good detail is visible. The EV is very good. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Pine✉ 00:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I was in St Peter's not long ago after I received my STB (even though they can issue it in America, it's "traditional", if you will, to get it from the related pontifical faculty in Rome), and I'm surprised the photographer was able to get anything more than shadows out of the picture. My pictures were shadows, with lighter shadows, and some chiaroscuro, with a hint of a sculpture somewhere in them. In summum, echo and support per Wingtipvorte. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 09:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per above. Best that can be done under the circumstances, unless you get Kevin Garnett to hold your camera for you. Chick Bowen 02:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The base appears slightly tilted to the left, perhaps should be fixed. Brandmeistertalk 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned edit.jpg --Julia\talk 20:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 10:47:06 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Pana_Banaue_Rice_Terraces.jpg/932px-Pana_Banaue_Rice_Terraces.jpg)
- Reason
- Large, good image, a stunning image of the natural landscape
- Articles in which this image appears
- Banaue Rice Terraces, Paddy field, Philippines
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama
- Creator
- Ori~
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 10:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comments: At upper right, there is a white triangle as if this is a panorama and there is no image data there. Also, the vine is a bit distracting. And the image seems tilted on the right half. The image is impressive though. Chris857 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: There is also an obvious stitching error 1/3 from the left. With some fixes this would be a valuable high quality image, but it needs some work... - Zephyris Talk 20:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose per above, and there is a discolored spot that's near the center of the image horizontally and near the bottom vertically. Pine✉ 19:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I too think it needs some work. Improvements needed before I support:
- Horizon correction. The steps/levels on the left are pointing up. The ones on the right are opposite. Some perspective correction too. White triangle on top right. This is due to improper tripod set-up or no tripod.
- Greater depth of field. Could be sharper.
- Remove the vine. Very distracting.
- Shorter focal length/wider angle. Would be good to not have the mountain cut off.
- Those things aside, it is a good picture with potential and a beautiful landscape.--WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above issues. gazhiley 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 09:25:01 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Space_Needle_2011-07-04.jpg/260px-Space_Needle_2011-07-04.jpg)
- Reason
- Good image, has free license, has EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- April 1962, Space Needle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Jordon Kalilich
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 09:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Image quality is lacking a bit. Noisy and unsharp. Jujutacular (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed your "Articles in which..." bit as it was only linking to the April 1962 page... gazhiley 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jujutacular - the bottom of the tower is so out of focus it looks like this was taken during an earthquake... gazhiley 07:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose not an earthquake, but very out of focus. Solution: tripod, camera in aperture priority, f/20+. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I wasn't suggesting it WAS an earthquake - just that it looked like it was due to focus issues... gazhiley 07:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I know. Mine was a poor attempt at continuing your humor. Should have put more effort into it. Sorry. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 08:33:03 (UTC)
- Reason
- This image is frackin' awesome; it illustrates gargoyles, rain gutters, Notre Dame, and Gothic architecture all extremely well; it seems to defy the very laws of physics. I've never nominated anything on here before, but according to my knowledge of the non-technical criteria, it is excellent. I do not have the knowledge to evaluate compliance with §1; it is high-resolution (§2); it is singularly excellent (§3); it is licensed under the GFDL (§4); in my personal opinion - this criteria is subjective - it adds significantly to the encyclopedic value of the articles, and those related, mentioned in the first sentence of the nomination; it is "awesome" in the traditional sense, i.e. evoking awe in the viewer (§5); it passes §6; it has a passable description; "Gargoyles of Notre Dame in Paris"; I can't imagine how one would get much more detailed than that, without describing where they are on the building (§7); and, again, I do not have the expertise necessary to evaluate compliance with §8.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Gargoyles is the one I found it in; it would work in many others (see nom).
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture (although it also is Artwork/Sculpture, Engineering, History, in order of descending importance slash relevance).
- Creator
- User:Albertus_teolog using the signature "Krzysztof Mizera".
- Support as nominator --St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as it is a bit low in the technical criteria. Poor DOF, odd angle/composition, and strong chromatic aberrations. EV is OK, but I feel this image can be easily retaken. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2012 at 05:11:27 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg/391px-Great_Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg)
- Reason
- Good image, has EV, large
- Articles in which this image appears
- Giovanni Battista Caviglia, Great Sphinx of Giza, Khufu, ist of statues by height, List of the oldest buildings in the world, Paul Solomon, Sphinx, Statue
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Barcex
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: To be honest, I'm not thrilled with the vantage point. The pyramid in the background prevents the viewer from getting a good look at the profile of the face. In addition, I would have preferred an angle that was a tad more front-on so you can see the face better. Something closer to the angle of this image. SpencerT♦C 06:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I Sphinx I have to agree with Spencer on this one - the angle could be better, there's no deNileing it... gazhiley 08:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well done! --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose does not meet all criteria:
- Is of a high technical standard?
Composition with pyramid in background is distracting. Image is soft.
- Is of high resolution?
- Is among Wikipedia's best work?
Not sure
- Has a free license?
- Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article?
- Is verifiable?
- Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description?
Could be expanded.
- Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation?
- I think there is room for improvement before this image reaches FP status. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 12:24:00 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Columbia_STS-1_arrival_at_launch_pad.jpg/330px-Columbia_STS-1_arrival_at_launch_pad.jpg)
- Reason
- Has a free license, good image, a good shot of STS-1 on its launch pad in 1981.
- Articles in which this image appears
- STS-1, Space Shuttle
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 12:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Tricky one this... My gut feeling is it's a little close... The whole of the launch pad isn't in view - it's cut off at the bottom corner, and the top of the tower is cut off too... But given the fact that we can never take this picture again, coupled with features showing that we don't normally see from side-on angle (the exhaust gas escape channel thing for one - centre right - as well as the various vehicles present such as the fire engine etc) I am happy enough to Support this image... gazhiley 08:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per gazhiley. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support I think this image should be used in a way that produces more EV. Pine
- Support Per gazhiley. Dusty777 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- comment to clean up all the scratches and dust or to leave them? Benjamint 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Simply because there are some exceptional STS-1 launchpad photos already FP and this isn't of that same quality. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 08:55:38 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Nuremberg_Frauenkirche_edit.jpg/250px-Nuremberg_Frauenkirche_edit.jpg)
- Reason
- Excellent details.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nuremberg Frauenkirche
- FP category for this image
- Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Kolossos
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 08:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose odd sky and blurry pinnacle. Angle not central. As a Nuremberger I unfortunately don't possess a good camera :|. Regards. --Kürbis (✔) 10:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurred above bell section, and the golden orb and final spire over exposed and oddly curved. I higher elevation of viewpoint should remove that issue - given that there are obv other buildings around this church I would like to hope that there is one behind the position that this was taken that would give a better angle for full focus. gazhiley 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support - the ball at the top is a little out-of-focus, but I wouldn't have realized it without it having been pointed out to me; the picture and subject are great, IMO, but the focus issue distracts from it being "Wikipedia's best work", so it's a weak support only. If there is an analogous process to Good Article/Featured Article (that is, if a picture can be submitted to be peer-reviewed as a "Good picture" as well as a "featured picture"), I'd list it there instead, where it would pass in a heartbeat. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kürbis and gazhiley. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2012 at 08:51:48 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Rowan_Atkinson_on_a_Mini_at_Goodwood_Circuit_in_2009.jpg/390px-Rowan_Atkinson_on_a_Mini_at_Goodwood_Circuit_in_2009.jpg)
- Reason
- I found it interesting because it is a bit funny and I think readers might also be interested with the image. Also, a good shot of the scene.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mr. Bean
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- Nathan Wong
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 08:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose low EV, background is blurry, his face almost shadowy. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Funny scene yes, but a picture of the ACTUAL filming would have better EV, and as Kürbis said, background is blurred. Great snapshot, worth being in the article, but not what I would consider to be good enough for a Featured Picture. gazhiley 10:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw I would like to withdraw my nomination. Mediran talk|contribs 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2012 at 12:35:53 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Botticelli-primavera.jpg/396px-Botticelli-primavera.jpg)
- Reason
- Has a free license, has EV, is of high resolution, good image of the painting of Sandro Botticelli, Primavera.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Aby Warburg, Italian Renaissance painting, Italian art, List of works by Sandro Botticelli, Primavera (painting), Sandro Botticelli
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Sandro Botticelli c. 1482 (Apokarteron)
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 12:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, sadly. This photograph is far too dark; the background should be green, not black, and the knots and contours in the bark of the trees are quite visible, as are all the individual leaves (not just the ones against the sky as here). It should be possible to photograph the painting so that these details are visible. Also, when you say high resolution, are you fully taking into account that this painting is over 10 feet wide? Chick Bowen 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - the (forest green) background is too dark, but, if that could be rectified, it would be excellent. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Chick Bowen. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 15:16:05 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Parthenon_night_view.jpg/402px-Parthenon_night_view.jpg)
- Reason
- Good lighting and angle, revealing some interior as well.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Parthenon
- FP category for this image
- Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Andrew Baldwin
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Excellent clarity, and unusual for an FP to be at night (in my experience) so really stands out nicely... The darkness around it seems to enhance the quality of the stonework IMO... gazhiley 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per gazhiley. Excellent! Dusty777 02:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Jkadavoor (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regretful Oppose Huh? Why? The scaffolding. I assume it was there on a temporary basis, and it not part of the building. It is a great photo, but should not be hard to retake it once the building is as it is supposed to be. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment the building is probably not going to be ever again as it was "supposed to be". Scaffolding is normal part of its present appearance. Just check out the image galleries. --ELEKHHT 23:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course it is not, I never said that. I said image should be how it is now. Is the scaffolding part of its present appearance? If it is, then I'll reconsider. But I need to see something more than pictures to tell me it is permanent. Scaffoldings serve no permanent purpose. If the building is falling down, then supports are added. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wingtipvortex. This photo was taken in 2010. According to what I'm reading from news sources, the scaffolding should be long gone. --Pine✉ 00:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as the scaffolding detracts from the EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wingtipvortex. Mediran talk|contribs 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - EV may be restored if there is discussion of the renovations(?) in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- It might be. Image is not in this section however. Even then, the scaffolding is not prominent in this image. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Support--Kürbis (✔) 09:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Regretful Oppose No way this is going to pass now.Dusty777 22:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)- Comment It still has the scaffholding as of 3 days ago. I was there when I was 5 years old and it was covered in scaffolding, it still is today, and I'm sure it will be still when we're all old retirees. Benjamint 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It does appear to still be there... I see no problem with the EV now. Dusty777 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing scaffolding in the photo that's in that article. Please link to the photo that shows the scaffolding. Thanks, --Pine✉ 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is the most recent I found. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing scaffolding in the photo that's in that article. Please link to the photo that shows the scaffolding. Thanks, --Pine✉ 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- It does appear to still be there... I see no problem with the EV now. Dusty777 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 08:27:18 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Sayornis_phoebe_-Madison%2C_Wisconsin%2C_USA-8.jpg/347px-Sayornis_phoebe_-Madison%2C_Wisconsin%2C_USA-8.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Sayornis_phoebe_-Owen_Conservation_Park%2C_Madison%2C_Wisconsin%2C_USA-8.jpg/331px-Sayornis_phoebe_-Owen_Conservation_Park%2C_Madison%2C_Wisconsin%2C_USA-8.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Eastern phoebe
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- John Benson
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- And Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom; but need a proper title here. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. Fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. Fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The other image in the article by the same author is better in almost every respect. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Both are good works and look very different. The other image looks like an ordinary composition but this looks a rare and attractive frame. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added the other one as alt. Tomer T (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- 'good' isn't the criteria though - EV is - the alt shows much more plumage.
- Support alt I prefer the alt, it has much better EV. ■ MMXX talk 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose If anything then the original should be nominated for delisting (in the bottom of this page). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delist? Nothing is already featured here. Both are featured in Commons only. Jkadavoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.63.221 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support the original picture.--Kürbis (✔) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support alt only. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support original Mediran talk|contribs 08:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Alt, Neutral on Original --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose original, support alt Better pose in the alt. --Pine✉ 07:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Sayornis phoebe -Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 08:04:21 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Chicken_Egg_without_Eggshell_2.jpg/317px-Chicken_Egg_without_Eggshell_2.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Chicken_Egg_without_Eggshell_5859.jpg/392px-Chicken_Egg_without_Eggshell_5859.jpg)
- Reason
- Illustrates the subject with a good quality.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Egg (food)
- FP category for this image
- Category:Food and drink
- Creator
- User:Gangulybiswarup
- Support as nominator --Shivashree (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Doesn't appear to be in the article the nom says it's in? gazhiley 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is in the Egg_(food)#Anatomy_and_characteristics section. Shivashree (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- The article is filled with so many eggs; so difficult to see on first glance. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- It shows anatomy of the egg, so I think it fits in the anatomy section rather than being at the top. Shivashree (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- How odd - it doesn't load that picture on my computer. When I hold my mouse over the white space under the picture showing a cut away with lines pointing at each section, the bar at the bottom of my screen shows the filename, but the picture just doesn't load for me... How strange... Thank you... gazhiley 17:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- It shows anatomy of the egg, so I think it fits in the anatomy section rather than being at the top. Shivashree (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- The article is filled with so many eggs; so difficult to see on first glance. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is in the Egg_(food)#Anatomy_and_characteristics section. Shivashree (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose . The reflection of the lights is distracting.But it's an awesome topic, we need a featured picture of this! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is that the "pawprint" looking white bits at the top?
If so I Oppose as well, as I believed that to be part of the egg, and thus it is misleading...gazhiley 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)- Is that really lighting? I don't think it is. Looking at this image (not a great example, but the best I could find), there are some small air bubbles on the top of the egg, while the flash is up farther front. SpencerT♦C 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. This image makes it pretty clear to me: [1]. Support, and sorry for the confusion. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is that really lighting? I don't think it is. Looking at this image (not a great example, but the best I could find), there are some small air bubbles on the top of the egg, while the flash is up farther front. SpencerT♦C 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is that the "pawprint" looking white bits at the top?
- According to a previous discussion on Commons, it seems to be an air bubble rather than flashlight. I have left a message on the photographer's talkpage to clear the confusion here. Shivashree (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the importance of the air bubble in the egg at [2]. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. It's also mentioned the article per nom at Egg_(food)#Air_cell and well-illustrated in this SVG file. Shivashree (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the above information I now
Support. Thanks for clarifying guys. gazhiley 11:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)- As new versions are showing since I voted may I just adjust my vote slightly... Support New Version with spot removed, Oppose Crop as too tight, and Oppose Original due to afore mentioned spot... gazhiley 08:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The round shape seven white patches are air filled bubbles under soft membrane. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Jkadavoor (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC).. New Version Jkadavoor (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - unique, of encyclopaedic value, and very attention-grabbing. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Can someone edit out the spot on the white surface to the lower left of the egg? SpencerT♦C 06:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I boldly cropped the image to deal with this. Pine✉ 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Support after crop. --Pine✉ 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- The crop seems too tight, makes the egg to seem larger than it actually is, isn't it? Shivashree (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The cropped version does not reflect it's volume as the shadow missing, and appears very bold with lack of 'free space'. I uploaded the new version from the original .NEF file and very little retouched by Photoshop to keep it's maximum unique colors.-- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- The retouch is good although in general I prefer photos that are as authentic as possible. For that reason I prefer the original to the retouch. Since the spot on the white surface is not very relevant to the subject of the photo, I will say that I Support original and Weak support retouch and crop after the discussion and looking at the alternatives. --Pine✉ 04:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support New Version and Original, and Oppose Crop Per above. Dusty777 19:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chicken Egg without Eggshell 5859.jpg --Julia\talk 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2012 at 04:51:59 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Murillo_immaculate_conception.jpg/260px-Murillo_immaculate_conception.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/The_Immaculate_Conception%2C_by_Giovanni_Battista_Tiepolo%2C_from_Prado_in_Google_Earth.jpg/245px-The_Immaculate_Conception%2C_by_Giovanni_Battista_Tiepolo%2C_from_Prado_in_Google_Earth.jpg)
- Reason
- High Ev as lead image, good quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Immaculate Conception, etc
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Bartolomé Esteban Murillo
- Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this one better? Tomer T (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's much better. Particularly, there are Holy Spirit and the serpent of sin, being trampled by Mary. Brandmeistertalk 15:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added it as an alt as it is better. Spongie555 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Alt. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Tiepolo's is closer to Francisco Pacheco's ideal (not that that necessarily makes it better, of course) Yomanganitalk 12:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Um, why are we considering two different paintings made 100 years apart in different countries? Chick Bowen 16:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- To determine which one depicts the Immaculate Conception better :) Brandmeistertalk 10:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral The alt is much better, but I saddly can not view the image on full size. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- However, I think File:Bartolomé Esteban Perez Murillo 021.jpg is the best from all three. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I viewed the image in Photoshop CS, it displays the image well after about 1 minute of loading. Brandmeistertalk 11:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support alt Mediran talk|contribs 08:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose both I'm not sure how the original is illustrating the Immaculate Conception. The original looks more like a generic painting of Mary despite its title. I don't think that the alt is a particularly encyclopedic illustration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it seems to show other parts of beliefs about Mary. These images might get FP for placement in other articles, but I don't think either of them should be featured for their use in Immaculate Conception. Pine✉ 20:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any doubt that they are paintings of the Immaculate Conception. They follow (to greater or lesser extents) Pacheco's idea of how to represent it. The Annunciation was rather easy to depict - Gabriel turns up, Mary looks shocked, mouths "You're kidding" - but the moment of immaculate conception caused problems until they hit on this representation. Yomanganitalk 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- If we must have one or the other as an FP for their use in the Immaculate Conception article, I prefer the original since the alt depicts Mary crushing a snake, which I think relates to beliefs that have little to do with the Immaculate Conception. I think the alt is a better depiction of beliefs about Mary in general so I might support it but I wouldn't support it for its use in this particular article. Pine✉ 00:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support alt, very symbolic, although the colors are a bit dull. Brandmeistertalk 08:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support alt. Tomer T (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question Where is the EV supposed to be here? The alt isn't in Immaculate Conception. It's in a gallery and a museum page, where it has very little EV, and an artist page, where it isn't even mentioned. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- The EV is for the Immaculate Conception page. The alt was put up so we can decide between the both of them, which one has the most EV so we can change the lead image of the Immaculate Conception article with the winner. Spongie555 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- FPC doesn't decide what the lead image in an article is. We'd only replace an image with an edited version of it, not an entirely different image. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- The EV is for the Immaculate Conception page. The alt was put up so we can decide between the both of them, which one has the most EV so we can change the lead image of the Immaculate Conception article with the winner. Spongie555 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alt first needs to be placed for the minimum period in the articles where EV has been claimed, and a new nomination created for proper assessment. Julia\talk 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2012 at 05:04:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- High Quality, Well-framing, Much EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Chlorophyllum molybdites
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Ianaré Sévi
- Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Needs a size reference. A statement on the image page that says what the size of this specimen was would be sufficient. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added some info referring to size. Alborzagros (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. This appears only in a gallery, and would not be suitable to replace the lead image. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with J Milburn. Pine✉ 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2012 at 04:56:26 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Dynastes_hercules_ecuatorianus_MHNT.jpg/350px-Dynastes_hercules_ecuatorianus_MHNT.jpg)
- Reason
- High Quality, Good Framing, well-shade background and full of EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hercules beetle
- FP category for this image
- Creator
- Archaeodontosaurus
- Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support but the sex should be specified. And I think the female also worth to feature. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added the sex (male ♂) to text.Alborzagros (talk)
- Support per nom. Size reference makes spikebrennan happy. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The size of insect is written through caption. Alborzagros (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. This
parrotbeetle appears to be dead. Kaldari (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- To be dead or not to be. this not question.Alborzagros (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is a museum specimen. I don't think they can survive for centuries without being dead. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer that the photos used to illustrate our animal articles be photos of live animals if possible. Kaldari (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That seems a good point. But focus stacked photos have more details and so more identification information than in a in vivo photo. Focus stacking for a restless subject is very difficult. Jkadavoor (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer that the photos used to illustrate our animal articles be photos of live animals if possible. Kaldari (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- This photo is already featured in Commons. Alborzagros (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support I confirm that despite his good looks he is dead. There is no concurecne between images of live insects and mounted specimen. The two are complementary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great quality and EV. It doesn't matter if the beetle is dead. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 07:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Armbrust: this is a well executed photo with strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Dynastes hercules ecuatorianus MHNT.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2012 at 13:08:34 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Cucurbita_moschata_Butternut_2012_G2.jpg/390px-Cucurbita_moschata_Butternut_2012_G2.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality and good EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cucurbita moschata, Butternut squash, Winter squash, List of gourds and squashes
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
- Creator
- George Chernilevsky
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Jkadavoor (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support EV is good. Image is a tad bit soft for my taste, and the colors are a bit dull. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is the grass and leaves the butternuts are laying in demonstrative of the environment they are commonly grown in? Also, is that flower part of the squash plant? None of the articles address flowering. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Pumpkin article address flowering. Need to add the picture there too? Jkadavoor (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't need to. There's already a picture of the flower attached to a vine. This flower doesn't look like it's attached to anything. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per me and Muhammad. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Seems like an odd setting to photograph the fruit in. --Muhammad(talk) 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Much of EV. Alborzagros (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The setting is actually quite appropriate here because the grass provides a size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- But if it's not the natural environment of butternuts, then it's deceptive in other ways. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- We can easily understand that these are harvested specimens; so I don't think it's deceptive in any ways. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- You can understand but I'm sure some will think these just pop out of the ground given that the flower also seems to come out of the earth --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Including the "cut" specimen? So this grows/pops out from a studio floor? Some criticisms are beyond my limits. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the setting is deceptive. I wouldn't mind a neutral bg --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Muhammad - the setting of sitting on the ground is deceptive... gazhiley 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Muhammad Mediran talk|contribs 08:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Weak opposeI think the problems mentioned above could be addressed by different placement in the articles or different captioning. Pine✉ 20:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)- Change to Weak support --Pine✉ 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: A butternut in it's natural environment would be better. It is tasty, though. :) Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2012 at 09:23:04 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Salvia_pratensis_006.jpg/352px-Salvia_pratensis_006.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality and EV
- Articles in which this image appears
- Salvia pratensis
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
- Creator
- H. Zell
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Needs exposure push/shadow lift - currently underexposed on the parts that we're interested in. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the other image in the article provides more EV although it's too small to meet the current FP criteria. Pine✉ 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 23:24:44 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/R_Coronae_Australis_region.jpg/350px-R_Coronae_Australis_region.jpg)
- Reason
- This is the only photograph in the article Corona Australis and the EV is good. I have expanded the caption in the article.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Corona Australis
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
- Creator
- European Southern Observatory
- Support as nominator --Pine✉ 23:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. Stunning. Dusty777 02:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support good Mediran talk|contribs 08:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:R Coronae Australis region.jpg --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 04:56:56 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Leather_bucket_of_a_well.jpg/390px-Leather_bucket_of_a_well.jpg)
- Reason
- Quality image, has EV, has a free license, is of high resolution.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Water well
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other
- Creator
- commons:User:Neogeolegend
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is a leather bucket. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As what said in the filename and the description of the image from the creator, the bucket was wooden, that's all I know. Mediran talk|contribs 10:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please view the image at 1:1; you can see the folds and stitches. Why do you edit the page Water well without contacting the creator of the file? It seems the picture was taken at UAE where people use leather bags as water containers on their horses and camels too. From [3]: "The camel had once provided most of life's necessities for desert nomads: It was a form of transportation, of course, a source of meat and milk, and provided hair to be woven into cloth for tents and storage bags. Its leather was made into sandals, buckets and watering-troughs and its sinews into bowstrings." Jkadavoor (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As what said in the filename and the description of the image from the creator, the bucket was wooden, that's all I know. Mediran talk|contribs 10:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose First off, as stated above, it is a leather bucket. Not that it matters for FP purposes. The EV is low, as the image is only in the article Water well, and I don't think a water bucket illustrates a well fairly well. Lastly, either the focus is off or there is some motion blur, but the bucket is not sharp. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- So corrected it in the article and file description. Jkadavoor (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Low ev. The image barely shows just one part of the top of the well (not even the entire aboveground portion). SpencerT♦C 04:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2012 at 08:47:56 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Kr%C3%B8yer_PS.jpg/350px-Kr%C3%B8yer_PS.jpg)
- Reason
- A self portrait of the notable Norwegian-Danish painter Peder Severin Krøyer. High quality, great resolution and details.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Peder Severin Krøyer
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Peder Severin Krøyer
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It appears there are some doubts as to the authenticity of this painting (in Danish). Its provenance is a little muddy and it is very close to the 1888 Uffizi self-portrait which has long been thought to be the only self-portrait by Krøyer from that year. The director of the Skagens museum was apparently unable to confirm its veracity between its listing in the Dorotheum catalogue and its sale in October 2011. If it is a forgery, it is a good one, but while there is doubt there are alternative self portraits to use. Yomanganitalk 12:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Normally whether a painting is a fake officially comes down to its inclusion (or not) in a catalogue raisonné, and given the emphasis on verifiability and not truth if it's in its in and if its out its out and it would therefore be very important to know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not. It was unknown until it materialised from a private collection in 2011. (Thankfully we've dispensed with the terrible "verifiability not truth" now anyway) Yomanganitalk 11:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 7
- So we have a choice whether to accept a lower standard of proof than the experts. However, we must still be sufficient sure about its licencing - if we doubt the authorship more than negligibly, that means that it may still be in copyright. Speaking of which the file doesn't have a valid US copyright tag, e.g. PD-100.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Copyright and authenticity are very closely related questions. If it is a forgery, the forger obviously owns the copyright, but will probably be unable to make any claims on it without risking legal trouble himself, making it a de facto free image. If it is an authentic Krøyer, it only has a valid US copyright tag (don't let the template text fool you, the US term is life + 70 years since it was first published in 2011), but is not free enough for commons since it is protected by the 25 years publication rights in the European Union. The only completely safe thing to do licensing-wise is to revert to the grayscale version, which is taken from a 1912 book and completely in the clear, and then revision-delete the colour version. They are different paintings anyway, even though they look almost identical, so maybe they should be uploaded as different files even if this version is kept around. 90.184.205.91 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- So we have a choice whether to accept a lower standard of proof than the experts. However, we must still be sufficient sure about its licencing - if we doubt the authorship more than negligibly, that means that it may still be in copyright. Speaking of which the file doesn't have a valid US copyright tag, e.g. PD-100.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Normally whether a painting is a fake officially comes down to its inclusion (or not) in a catalogue raisonné, and given the emphasis on verifiability and not truth if it's in its in and if its out its out and it would therefore be very important to know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 21:08:05 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Humble_Tower.jpg/260px-Humble_Tower.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality, newly created article meets EV requirements
- Articles in which this image appears
- Humble Oil Building, National Register of Historic Places listings in downtown Houston, Texas
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- User:Jujutacular
- Support as nominator --Jujutacular (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support well captured: good angle and lighting. --ELEKHHT 13:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support; looks strong, an excellent example of what pictures of this sort should be. J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Mediran talk|contribs 04:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The ground gives me a headache - not sure if it's OOF, or from processing. 141.14.245.242 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- The focus was placed on the center of the building. The aperture probably could have been narrowed a bit (f/8 with 1/250 shutter speed), but I don't feel that it detracts greatly. Jujutacular (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral I agree with the IP about lower part of the image. That could use improvement. Otherwise this is good. Pine✉ 23:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I notice Jujutacular's comments on the focus placement. The ground being out of focus is not a big deal to me. I would like the entire building to be in focus, but it is not at neither the top nor the bottom. Jujutacular, or someone else, how difficult would it be to shoot it again, with a tripod, at say f/15+ for wider DOF? I would also like a shot where the sun is on the other side and we don't get the shadow cutting across the lower part of the building. If these are impossible requests, I will weakly support. Otherwise I feel we should wait for a picture without these concerns. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not impossible, but it may be some time before it happens. I need to line up: a clear day, Sunday (only day I can get to this spot), my schedule free, not get accosted by security. Even if this does pass, I see that there is some hesitancy on the part of the comments here, so I may go back and try to get a better image when possible. Thank you for the recommendations. Jujutacular (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not disturbed by that shadow at all, it naturally emphasises the geometry of the building. --ELEKHHT 20:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Weak support. I don't think the ground in the foreground is out of focus, at least not much. At f/8 and with such a distance, it should be in the same focal plane as the building, I would imagine. I suspect that the reason why it looks blurry is that it's been warped more significantly by the perspective correction, so all the detail is being stretched wider. As a result, you can see significantly more chromatic abberation in the bottom of the frame (good example is the white car), but it seems to be present throughout the image, and while stopping down can help minimise this, f/8 is probably appropriate for reasons of sharpness. Juju, if you have access to Adobe Lighroom or Photoshop, you can correct chromatic abberation there. Alternatively, use a superior lens if available. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Humble Tower.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 11:57:46 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg/347px-Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg)
- Reason
- Has a free license, has EV, has high resolution. Good representation image of a young galaxy.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Galaxy
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
- Creator
- ESO/L. Calçada
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 11:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose EV seems weak. Pine✉ 19:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pine. Also, why have an artist's impression when we have plenty of pictures? --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 11:50:39 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Galactic_Cntr_full_cropped.jpg/260px-Galactic_Cntr_full_cropped.jpg)
- Reason
- Has a free license, has high resolution, has EV, also a good image of the Galactic Center.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Galactic Center
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
- Creator
- 2MASS/G. Kopan, R. Hurt
- Support as nominator --Mediran talk|contribs 11:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Question we already have Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Milky Way galaxy which seems to have better focus on the galactic core. How is the image that you're nominating contributing to the article in a way that the current FP doesn't? Pine✉ 19:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- For me, my nomination contributed well because it has more EV than the current FP. Because the image I am nominating is the lead image on the article Galactic Center where both of the image appeared in while the current FP is just used in the Gallery section. Mediran talk|contribs 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's true that this is the lead image and the other FP is in the gallery, but it seems to me that you could just swap the current FP to be the lead. I don't see how this particular photo contributes a huge amount of EV. Pine✉ 21:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- For me, my nomination contributed well because it has more EV than the current FP. Because the image I am nominating is the lead image on the article Galactic Center where both of the image appeared in while the current FP is just used in the Gallery section. Mediran talk|contribs 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 23:25:21 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Flame_angelfish_%28Centropyge_loricula%29.jpg/260px-Flame_angelfish_%28Centropyge_loricula%29.jpg)
- Reason
- Sharp image, showcasing the details of this nice species
- Articles in which this image appears
- Flame angelfish
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Andreas März
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support the fish looks unbelievably bright in this photo but looking at other Internet pics it looks like this is realistic. Pine✉ 19:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support good image, good EV. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Red channel is completely blown on large areas of the fish. Julia\talk 15:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Julia. The red is rather prominent. Dusty777 16:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I've looked at other pictures of this fish on the internet and they all show this fish to be an amazingly bright orange. I don't think this photograph is unrealistic. Pine✉ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Dusty meant, but my oppose is based on a technical shortcoming of the photograph. I agree that the colour is probably realistic, but the execution here is poor because the red channel is blown. The result is a severe loss of detail, such that the scales, which should be crisply visible, are smudged and fuzzy or in some areas even absent. There are several ways you can check for this technical aspect yourself in an image editing program, but the histogram is the easiest starting point. Julia\talk 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the image could show the scales in more detail like the photo at http://showyourfishes.com/flame_angelfish/ but I'm not sure the problems are bad enough here that I'd want to oppose. Pine✉ 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Dusty meant, but my oppose is based on a technical shortcoming of the photograph. I agree that the colour is probably realistic, but the execution here is poor because the red channel is blown. The result is a severe loss of detail, such that the scales, which should be crisply visible, are smudged and fuzzy or in some areas even absent. There are several ways you can check for this technical aspect yourself in an image editing program, but the histogram is the easiest starting point. Julia\talk 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I've looked at other pictures of this fish on the internet and they all show this fish to be an amazingly bright orange. I don't think this photograph is unrealistic. Pine✉ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Julia Mediran talk|contribs 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 09:41:09 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/LH_95.jpg/400px-LH_95.jpg)
- Reason
- Good quality large image, lead image in an article, used in multiple pages
- Articles in which this image appears
- LH 95, Star formation, Large Magellanic Cloud, List of nearest galaxies. An alternate version was used on Astronomy, Intergalactic travel, and Space colonization which I replaced with this larger version. (As of October 6, I am discussing which version to use for Star on the article's talk page). I also used this image to replace a smaller image that was in Template:Star formation.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
- Creator
- "NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration"
- Support as nominator --Pine✉ 09:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Not super high quality at full res, but that is fairly common in star photos.
EV is decent.--WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)- Note: I just replaced an alternate version of this image with this version in four articles and replaced a different smaller image with this version on a template. I have linked the new articles and the template in the above list. Pine✉ 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Edit EV is very good now. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Mediran talk|contribs 12:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - it is very majestic depiction of creation. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 08:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:LH 95.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 07:28:11 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/US_Navy_050527-N-6077T-018_Newly_commissioned_officers_celebrate_their_new_positions_by_throwing_their_Midshipmen_covers_into_the_air_as_part_of_the_U.S._Naval_Academy_class_of_2005_graduation_and_commissioning_ceremony.jpg/397px-thumbnail.jpg)
- Reason
- The work has good EV - as the primary image of the page for Officer (armed forces) it depicts a milestone ceremony for officers capturing the symbolic 'hat toss'. The aesthetic appeal is evident. The photo is well sourced. While the resolution of the height scrapes under the 1500 pixel minimum guideline, an exception could be made based on the technicality of its framing and uniqueness.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Officer (armed forces)
- FP category for this image
- I'm tentatively suggesting Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA_History, although there may be a better one.
- Creator
- Mate 1st Class Kevin H. Tierney
- Support as nominator --Noozman (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I feel very uneasy about EV to "Officer (armed forces)", which documents officers in all sorts of military service, around the world, " symbolic 'hat toss'" is not symbolic in most of these places. Are there not more specific pages? Is this image inferior to those already used there, or merely unused? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this adds a huge amount of EV to this article in its current context. The photo surely is not of a typical military officer who is performing typical duties or posing for an official portrait. The photo might do better in the article graduation if you'd like to expand it to include military graduations. You might also find a spot for it somewhere in the United States Naval Academy article. Pine✉ 09:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pine. As two side notes, A) it should not be the lead image in Officer (armed forces) per both Pine and Grandiose, and B) That file needs a shorter name... --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pine Mediran talk|contribs 12:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 17:28:00 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Vultures_in_the_nest%2C_Orchha%2C_MP%2C_India.jpg/357px-Vultures_in_the_nest%2C_Orchha%2C_MP%2C_India.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Vultures_in_the_nest%2C_Orchha%2C_MP%2C_India_edit.jpg/370px-Vultures_in_the_nest%2C_Orchha%2C_MP%2C_India_edit.jpg)
- Reason
- Exceptional picture of Indian vulture in the nest. Very difficult to take: this bird nests at the top of high buildings, far out of reach from humans. The species is highly endangered following use of deadly chemical by veterinary doctors.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Indian Vulture, Madhya Pradesh
- FP category for this image
- Birds
- Creator
- Yann
- Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
OpposeA nice picture. There would definitely be EV if it was the lead image. It needs to be in the article for 7 days. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)- I only replaced the existing image, taken at the same place and the same moment, but which was not as good as this one. This is discribed as OK in the guidelines. Yann (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to be Neutral on the alt while I'll continue to Oppose the original nom. The alt is a decent image, which could be sharper, though the colors are much better than the original. I agree with others that EV is a bit low unless there is a section about nesting. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: This would potentially have excellent EV to show nesting habits in a longer article. I do find the building in the background a little distracting, though. J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Nice image but I agree with J Milburn that this would have a stronger claim to EV if there was a section in the article about nesting. Pine✉ 21:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm adding an edit as it seemed better contrast was possible in this image. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Samsara (FA • FP) 08:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose after some thought. The image is not well used, and the background is a little distracting. The former point is the more important one. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The article says "The species breeds mainly on cliffs, but is known to use trees to nest in Rajasthan"; but here it is on the sunshade of an ancient temple. So I think editing the text of the article and the image caption will improve the EV. It will be nice if Samsara or somebody else remove the white building on the background in Edit 1. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
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:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing
{{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}}
on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
When promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
- Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Add the image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
- If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the September archive. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
from this page to the bottom of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
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.
Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.
|
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 11:41:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- Too small even by previous standards.
- Articles this image appears in
- Adolf Hitler and others
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hitler and Mussolini
- Nominator
- Brandmeistertalk
- Delist — Brandmeistertalk 11:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Could we maybe find a higher resolution version to replace this one? The picture has excellent EV... Seems a shame to have to delist it. Dusty777 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've searched before nominating, but failed to find one. Brandmeistertalk 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delist. Light cropping and the removal of the "LVCE" watermark would improve this image. However, even then, too small. A great image, but not really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: This nomination is factually flawed; the sole reason given for delisting is wrong. Before the recent increase in minimum resolution, this file met (and exceeded) the criteria. We agreed that a result of the amendment wouldn't be delisting things that previously satisfied the minimum requirement. Julia\talk 23:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Julia - Spongie555 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Suggest Speedy Keep per Julia. Even if it was nominated today, it should still pass, seeing as it is a historical image with incredible EV. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not too sure if it would pass today, considering the size requirements have gone up, but it would be interesting to see the result of such a nomination. Dusty777 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep till a better replace ever available. Jkadavoor (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Julia and Jkadavoor. Dusty777 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Julia and Jkadavoor. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep For such a historically important image I would never support delisting it unless a higher superior image existed for us to use. — raekyt 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per JKadavoor. Strong EV. Shivashree (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Unless a higher resolution image is available. Historical image with great EV. EngineerFromVega★ 06:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2012 at 20:50:36 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Full_Moon_Luc_Viatour.jpg/250px-Full_Moon_Luc_Viatour.jpg)
- Reason
- No longer the best picture available. To be replaced by this nomination. No need for two Featured Pictures of the same thing.
- Articles this image appears in
Used only in Template:The Moon(as far as a I know. I'll be checking all links.)- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Full Moon
- Nominator
- Dusty777
- Delist — Dusty777 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delist and replace with the larger image. Pine✉ 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delist and replace per nom. SpencerT♦C 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delist and replace per nom. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delist and replace per nom. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Replaced picture in Template:The Moon with new nomination.
The file page still says it's used in all listed articles, but I can't find it in any of the articles, if someone can help me troubleshoot that.Dusty777 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC) - Delist as above. (The other has now been promoted.) I have also replaced this image with the new one on Book:Moon. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delist per above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delist per all above Mediran talk|contribs 05:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:59, 22 October 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:
- Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.
If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the delisted image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
Recently closed nominations
Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three days following closure and subsequently be removed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 16:54:40 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Girl_on_bullock_cart%2C_Umaria_district%2C_MP%2C_India.jpg/393px-Girl_on_bullock_cart%2C_Umaria_district%2C_MP%2C_India.jpg)
- Reason
- Good quality image of a traditional bullock-cart (notice the disk wheels). The different parts of the yoke are clearly visible.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bullock cart, Yoke
- Land vehicles
- Creator
- Yann
- Support as nominator --Yann (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough EV. The main subject of the image are the oxen, not the cart, as you hardly see any of it. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- The scope is Bullock cart, not cart, that's why it shows a pair of bulls. Yann (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wingtipvortex. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wingtipvortex Mediran talk|contribs 12:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Julia\talk 23:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Crew of STS-107
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2012 at 08:10:13 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Crew_of_STS-107%2C_official_photo.jpg/400px-Crew_of_STS-107%2C_official_photo.jpg)
- Reason
- Good quality official portrait of the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia mission STS-107. On February 1, 2003, Columbia disintegrated during atmospheric reentry and all of the crew died in the accident. While the photo isn't especially striking, it has high historic and encyclopedic value. The photo was previously nominated for Featured Picture in 2006.
- Articles in which this image appears
- STS-107, Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and others
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
- Creator
- NASA
- Support as nominator --Pine✉ 08:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support, unless someone can make a case against the technicals. From where I'm sitting the only possible opposition is, as in 2006, that it doesn't have "impact". But it doesn't need to. The EV is huge. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'll be honest, I'd like this to be an FP, but I don't think it qualifies. The above mentioned nominations set a precedent, though it is not for the reasons established in those noms that I oppose this one. Let me explain: I think it is safe to say this image adds little to the accident page, as it is not about the accident. Therefore, I think this image should be held to the same standards as all other crew photos when it comes crew photos in articles about the missions. In the few other shuttle mission articles I checked, the crew photos are not featured pictures. Now, if there was an article about the crew of STS-107, this would be a no-brainier support, as the image would illustrate the scope of the article and would not be able to be retaken as they are all dead. But the article is about the mission, not the crew. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 15:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't think that the crew, all personally involved, of an accident contributes to an article about the accident? I heartily disagree. If there was a photograph of the Busby Babes then that would contribute to the article on the crash by showing those who died and survived, just like this one. I also question whether FPC really applies a question of precedent at all. We have plenty of renominations that pass the second time, we shouldn't feel bound per se. You might agree with the original objection, you might not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. If the crew were to blame for the accident, then that would be one thing. But they were not. So how much does the image of the crew add to the article of the accident? Some, yes. It is important to know the people that died in the accident. But does it illustrate the accident? That is what I meant, that it adds little in the FP realm. If the image was that of a dead crewmember after the accident, then it would have a enough EV for FP. But this image would be the same one had there been no accident. Hence, my comment that this image should be treated the same as all other spaceship crew photos.
- I just checked, neither the Apollo 13 crew picture nor the Apollo 1 crew picture are featured. We already mentioned the Challenger crew photo not being FP. No, I don't think a precedent is binding. Regardless, my comments indicated that I didn't oppose this nom due to the previous noms.
- Hopefully that explains where I'm coming from a little better. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with you here. There is an article on STS-107 and the composition of the crew is relevant to a shuttle flight. Each crew trains for the specific missions that happened during a specific flight. A photo of good quality for each mission's crew would have its place among FPs if we can get a photo that has sufficient size and technical quality, and I believe that this photo passes those tests for STS-107. Also, wouldn't you say that the identities of the deceased individuals are relevant for showing the consequences of the accident? Pine✉ 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Most NASA missions will have a good crew shot. Can they all be FPs? Sure. You are correct in that the crew is specific to each mission. The crew is only part of the mission, just as the orbiter is only part of it. The mission itself are all the experiments and work that was done while in orbit by the crew in the shuttle. That is what I think would wholly illustrate the mission and if it is a good image should be FP. I oppose this nom on the basis that it adds to the article because the mission failed. If we decide it is OK for all crew shots (if good) to be FPs, I will support it in that regard. Now, I do not disagree with you that identifying the deceased is important. Their mere picture doesn't fully illustrate the consequences of the accident however. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just because Apollo 13 nor Apollo 1 have their crew picture as featured, doesn't mean they can't be. I checked also, and neither pictures were ever nominated, so no one knows if they would be promoted or not. That is a poor reason for an Oppose (not to disregard your other reasons.) Dusty777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't at all a reason for my oppose. Notice how I wrote that after my main explanation of my vote. My point was that this image should be treated as any other crew photo. If we decide to start nominating crew photos (of which there are a lot), I'm OK with that. I just don't think this one deserves to be FP solely on the basis that the crew died. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Just so you understand where I'm coming from in terms of how well an image adds EV, I think the following files significantly add EV to the accident article: File:Space mirror sts107.jpg, File:STS-107 Columbia entry imaged from ground.jpg, File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg, and File:Impact-test.jpg. That is not to say they would meet the quality criteria for FP. In terms of EV: the first are the names of the astronauts in the NASA mirror, the second shows how the shuttle started to disintegrate, the third shows the aftermath of the accident, and the fourth shows how big a hole was in the orbiter. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't at all a reason for my oppose. Notice how I wrote that after my main explanation of my vote. My point was that this image should be treated as any other crew photo. If we decide to start nominating crew photos (of which there are a lot), I'm OK with that. I just don't think this one deserves to be FP solely on the basis that the crew died. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with you here. There is an article on STS-107 and the composition of the crew is relevant to a shuttle flight. Each crew trains for the specific missions that happened during a specific flight. A photo of good quality for each mission's crew would have its place among FPs if we can get a photo that has sufficient size and technical quality, and I believe that this photo passes those tests for STS-107. Also, wouldn't you say that the identities of the deceased individuals are relevant for showing the consequences of the accident? Pine✉ 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't think that the crew, all personally involved, of an accident contributes to an article about the accident? I heartily disagree. If there was a photograph of the Busby Babes then that would contribute to the article on the crash by showing those who died and survived, just like this one. I also question whether FPC really applies a question of precedent at all. We have plenty of renominations that pass the second time, we shouldn't feel bound per se. You might agree with the original objection, you might not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Historically significant, not an ordinary STS crew photo and perhaps the best among other STS 107 photos. This is good also (shows their boots in particular, which are out on the nominated photo), but is unfortunately smaller. Brandmeistertalk 21:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support I see no problems here. The EV is excellent in STS-107 (after all, the crew was STS-107.) Dusty777 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The crew is not the most featured part of the mission. They are the most important part of the disaster; but the file File:STS-107-Debris KSC Hangar.jpg has more "emotional EV" there than just a group snap. Further it shows the enormous people involved in that mission and their feelings. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Has very high EV in the STS-107 article. But what separates it from other crew photos is its EV (albeit smaller) in the disaster article. Added up, I feel the EV is sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Dusty777. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Crew of STS-107, official photo.jpg --Julia\talk 23:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2012 at 08:31:41 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Spb_06-2012_Chesme_Church.jpg/350px-Spb_06-2012_Chesme_Church.jpg)
- Reason
- Good EV and high quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Chesme Church
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- A.Savin
- Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- And Support edit 1. Tomer T (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Kürbis (✔) 19:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 too. Jkadavoor (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 07:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Question is it just me, or was the perspective correction overdone and the top of the building is a tad bit wider than the bottom? --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seeing no reply, and agreeing with King of Hearts, I Oppose this nom. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Spongie555 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support edit - Spongie555 (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks oversaturated to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support edit1. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks oversaturated and also too dark in my opinion. Jujutacular (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per King of Hearts and Jujutacular. Too dark in the sky and in the clouds. Mediran talk|contribs 12:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Edit 1 Uploaded Seems a bit harsh to oppose when a simple edit can fix the problem --Muhammad(talk) 17:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is quite standard to do that at FPC, since in general an image, once nominated, is never reuploaded at the same filename. This way, a user can oppose the original and support the edit to show preference for the edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Thanks Muhammad. Jujutacular (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Muhammad, I like your version indeed - would it be OK when I overwrite the previous image by this version? In general, I don't like to have various edits of the same file as separate files, but I'm not familiar with the FPC procedure here. - A.Savin (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- We usually have separate files for different edits as this makes it easier to track who supports what. At the end of the nomination, if you still want to overwrite it, discuss with the closer --Muhammad(talk) 14:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Spb 06-2012 Chesme Church.jpg --Julia\talk 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I replaced the original file with Muhammad's edit, as per the creator's request. Julia\talk 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Suspended nominations
This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.