Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Featured picture candidate)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

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

Promoting an image

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

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

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

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

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

Delisting an image

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

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

How to comment for Delist Images

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

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

Gray contrast test image.svg
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.
Highlight test image.svg
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.
Colortest.png
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 on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.
FPCs needing feedback
view · edit

Current nominations[edit]

Portrait Of Boy (Frankie, The Organ Boy)[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2018 at 19:04:28 (UTC)

Original — Titled “Portrait of Boy” in the artist’s private logbook, with no further elaboration, but traditionally known as “Frankie, The Organ Boy”, Bellows’ portrait is of a child with a visible midline defect, possibly due to a chromosomal microdeletion; the sitter was either a seller of newspapers, since his nickel badge gives him permission to be out of school during daylight hours, or (more likely to my mind) a musician working in the very earliest movie houses in the vicinity of Bellows’ New York City studio. Possibly painted in a single sitting, the portrait pays tribute to the sitter “in the grand manner” as a full-body, formal, and ‘royal’ portrait.
Reason
An excellent and faithful Google Art Project reproduction of one of George Bellows’ most important early works, on which I intend to commence a new article
Articles in which this image appears
George Bellows, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
FP category for this image
painting
Creator
Dcoetzeebot



Ceiling of the Hall of the Consistory in Palazzo Pubblico (Siena)[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 15:49:07 (UTC)

Original – Ceiling of the Hall of the Consistory in Palazzo Pubblico (Siena).jpg
Reason
One of best ceiling in Siena
Articles in which this image appears
Palazzo Pubblico
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
LivioAndronico



Southern plains grey langur (Semnopithecus dussumieri) female in India[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 11:37:12 (UTC)

OriginalSouthern plains grey langur (Semnopithecus dussumieri) female in Kanha National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India
Reason
Very detailed portrait. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Southern plains grey langur
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Perhaps a bit cool, but good quality.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Composition is slightly unbalanced, can't tell why it feels like that, but how about cutting off about 5% from the right and top? --Janke | Talk 11:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I prefer it with the eyes central and certainly wouldn't want to crop the top. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the top needs cropping, but tend to agree with Janke that the indistinct background (due to shallow DOF) could be cropped somewhat on the right and maybe even a bit on the left. (I find expanses of unfocused background distracting: The eye tends to search for some visual information about variations in the blurry tableau.) Sca (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see subjective issues of cropping mentioned under Featured Picture Criteria... Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course not - we just told you what we think/feel... Besides, I already supported! ;-) Somehow, I'd like to see the "face circle" centered within the frame - not that it affects EV at all, but would make for a more striking (and larger!) image on the Main Page... --Janke | Talk 18:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Having opined re cropping above, I find the image of animal's face quite striking. Sca (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support©Geni (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)



Marsh fritillaries mating[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 11:29:49 (UTC)

OriginalMarsh fritillary butterflies (Euphydryas aurinia) mating (male left, female right) in Dorset, England
Reason
High EV. Very sharp image. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Marsh fritillary
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - caption & description should include which is male/female (now that info is just in image notes). Renata (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Renata was hoping for this information to be in the image description as well. If you open the image on Wikipedia, you can't see the notes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The image notes (feature? plug-in?) is only available on Commons. It doesn't carry through to Wikipedia.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good quality, useful image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - No reason not to support... --Janke | Talk 11:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)



Nominations — to be closed[edit]

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

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[edit]

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. 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/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the February archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  4. 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.
  5. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
  5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
  6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  9. 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.
  10. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the February archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  11. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure[edit]

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

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

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

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

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  4. 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.
  5. 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}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.

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

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 Replaced section of the archive.

Recently closed nominations[edit]

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

Discobolus in National Roman Museum Palazzo Massimo alle Terme[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2018 at 04:32:09 (UTC)

Original – A Roman marble statue of a Discobolus (discus thrower) from the National Roman Museum in Palazzo Massimo alle Terme.
Reason
I think it easily meets the quality requirements of 1, 2, and 3. The picture is well formatted and of very high quality. The statue itself does not have huge historical importance, but it is a great example of Roman Discobolus statues. It is a featured and quality picture on Commons, and featured on the Persian wiki.
Articles in which this image appears
Discobolus
Ancient Olympic Games
Barefoot
FP category for this image
Sculpture
Creator
User:Livioandronico2013

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)



Pied kingfisher female[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 22:56:51 (UTC)

Original – Female pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis leucomelanurus) from the Chambal River, Uttar Pradesh, India
Reason
High quality image illustrating article well. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Pied kingfisher
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support You might try to remove noise with focal bracketing (in future). --PetarM (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean by focal bracketing here. This is a a hand-held shot from an unstable floating platform. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Its not stacking as i do often. It's focal bracketing, if you have it on camera. Means you push button at (say) f/6.3 so it goes f/6.3,f/7.1,f/8 straight (if you put 3 shots, i have 5 also, so is increasing that number). They you set Median stack, getting rid of some noise, while you set the bird on best f. It is some working, but the shot is a keeper. You might move, the background is far from being sharp anyway, erase tool can help (3 shots - 3 layers in a stack). EVen if you are afraid which f would be good, you can still choose just one. Better than putting manual. --PetarM (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Camera does not have that F no. facility but does have night-scene-hand-held which combines 4 images, but too much sharpness is lost with these approaches (such as AEB Automatic Exposure Bracketing) when protographing the hairs and feathers on wildlife. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
        • An idea: You might simply shoot a burst of 3 to 5 images (most cameras have burst mode), then edit/average out the grain in the background, but keep the best frame of the bird... The slight grain doesn't bother me, so Support. In fact, the spider thread bothers me more... ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd support a bit tighter crop. Too much of the right side is empty space.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The lead room on the right is not a problem. dllu (t,c) 05:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus on how much space to leave. See my current FP nomination on Commons where The Photographer argues exactly the opposite to Chris's suggestion!: [[1]]. As long as there is enough space in an uploaded version I think the argument on a portrait is not so important. More important on a landscape-type image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dllu: I simply said I'd support a tighter crop. Maybe 150px on the top, 200px on the right, or something like that. I understand the point of lead room. However, given that the subject is static, and the EV of the image is related to its appearance within articles (at thumbnail size), I think that a slightly closer crop would work best on en-Wiki.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with Chris re tighter crop, especially since background lacks visual information. Sca (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Very happy if someone marks up a suggested crop. I'd then crop the image of the male to suit. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • And if you are croping, than do left side also so tree would start from diagonal. And bird will become a bit biger also. --PetarM (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Would also support Petar's idea.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my !vote on Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis leucomelanurus) female.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)



Common black-hawk[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 18:51:12 (UTC)

OriginalCommon black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus gundlachii) in Cuba
Reason
High quality image illustrating article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Common black-hawk
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nice pic! Looks good to me, high EV. Mattximus (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Light is a bit harsh, but given the location probably not much you could do. Otherwise the image is excellent  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good choice of species too. Brandmeistertalk 21:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as I did at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Common black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus gundlachii).JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)



Lōdal Evo T-28 waste collection truck[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 10:26:22 (UTC)

Original – A Lōdal Evo T-28 waste collection truck operated by Recology in San Francisco, California, USA. This vehicle is a side-loading compacting waste collection truck. Waste is loaded into the hopper located in the middle of the vehicle, which is then compressed into the body by a hydraulic ram.
Reason
high image quality, already an FP, VI, and QI on Wikimedia Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Recology, Garbage truck, Cab over
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator
dllu
  • Support as nominatordllu (t,c) 10:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Little or no EV. Sca (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Obvious EV.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Looks quite bizarre without a background. I would consider the unprocessed version if it were used in the articles instead. Kaldari (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this is a clear and useful image, I agree that the absence of a background is a problem: professional photos of vehicles tend to have either relevant backgrounds or some kind of neutral backing rather than portraying them as floating in space here. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If I were writing a print encyclopedia, I'd definitely use this. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the encyclopedias I had as a child used something similar.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of professional photos of vehicles with a white background. For example, garbage truck on Getty that is selling for $375. dllu (t,c) 05:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice, clear photo that has no obvious problem areas. The white background actually seems to make this vehicle/photo pop out even more, which is nice. Goveganplease (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I see how an artificial background can be distracting, but this being a piece of machinery, not just a vehicle, and this being an encyclopedia I am Ok with it. I see sufficient EV to support. Bammesk (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • 5 supports and 3 opposes, and thus no consensus for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)



Jasenovac concentration camp[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2018 at 09:40:29 (UTC)

Reason
good shot (weather, colors) for depicting this horror place - Jasenovac concentration camp
Articles in which this image appears
Jasenovac concentration camp and many others
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Petar Milošević
  • Support as nominatorPetarM (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Commment - Wouldn't this have more EV at Stone Flower (sculpture)? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Commment - I like the daytime shot in the Stone Flower (sculpture) better - more EV i that. --Janke | Talk 07:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Info You can put image there, but my intention is to show Jasenovac logor. These days in United Nations there is opened this exhebition, and Croatian government didn't want it, they try to hide it. Logor is standing in Croatian border between Bosnia and Croatia, huge etermination logor Gradina was part of it. @Janke i dont believe sunny, shiny picture can suit this place. Remember Schindler's list, what color was it? Please read more about it. So country which opened logor and was killing is now protesting, something like Germany would protest against commemorating in Dachau or Auschwitz. In time of Yugoslavia it was always opened, now Croatia close that museum. Chris Woodrich this is not just a picture, it is something more. Should be on main page on commemoration day. Thats is why i put it here. Quality, temperature, colors are more than great for showing this site. --PetarM (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No doubt it's a good shot. I'm just not sure it's the best EV for the camp itself. Boelcke Kaserne at Nordhausen, for example, is represented at FP by a contemporary image (warning, NSFW).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Other parts of Camps in Jasenovac were destroyed, so isn't like some in Poland. We should make some exceptions for Picture of the day, like this and some others, which might not get FP star, but they have bigger relevance. --PetarM (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you saying there are no images of Jasenovac from when it was used as a concentration camp? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Chris Woodrich Actually i havent saw any other structure than this which isnt part of Commons. If you see Commons site for Jasenovac you will see just horror. Those pics are low quality, small resolution, and i doubt poeple here would support voting. --PetarM (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC) p.S. In other case, it was only logor which Nazists didnt control, and Croats didnt do much photos, or destroyed. In any case, Red Army was faster before Germans destroyed them.

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Typhoon Noru of 2017 at its peak intensity[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2018 at 16:57:17 (UTC)

OriginalTyphoon Noru, with the tropical storm (or above) duration of 19 days, had all requirements of an annular typhooon on July 31, 2017, as it did not have clear rainbands and significant cirrus clouds. The size of Noru’s eye is average but relatively large for that small and axisymmetric system.
Reason
High-resolution picture of a nearly perfect annular typhoon at its peak intensity. NASA’s Aqua satellite captured Typhoon Noru with a pefect angle, presenting an exquisite tropical cyclone. In the picture, the eye is so symmetric and deep; the convective ring looks so compact and smooth, but it does not attach to the monsoon trough. Moreover, the eye and the convective ring are in the golden ratio. When I initially saw the image last July, I was truly touched beyond words. I have checked many beautiful tropical cyclones in Wikipedia, yet none of them is really comparable. Aside from the extremely rare appearance, Noru was the second strongest typhoon of 2017 and the second longest lasting Northwest Pacific tropical storm in history, which ultimately struck Japan.
Articles in which this image appears
Annular tropical cyclone, 2017 Pacific typhoon season, Typhoon Noru (2017)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
Creator
MODIS image was captured by NASA’s Aqua satellite and optimized by Meow for solving overexposure.
  • Support as nominator –  🐱💬 16:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: as per what Meow said - Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a perfect chance for you, eh? Well, i could say as a "YES". - Nino Marakot (talk page) 11:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • comment Can you expand on what you mean by "optimized by Meow for solving overexposure"?©Geni (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Geni: As the picture was captured near noon and in summer, sunlight over the area was too bright that even caused significant overexposure. The typhoon itself also enhanced the effect of overexposure as its cloud top was too smooth to have obvious shadows. The original picture looked completely white without optimization. A Himawari-8 animation on that day also revealed how the satellite solved overexposure. 🐱💬 02:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - --위키광역시 (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Noru 2017-07-31 0415Z.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)



Treaty of Waitangi[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 02:51:14 (UTC)

Original – The group of nine documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi
Reason
Very high resolution copy of the 9 documents that make up the Treaty of Waitangi, high EV. This image contains all nine signed sheets of the Treaty. In the previous FPC for the Waitangi Sheet (only one of the 9 sheets of the Treaty), there were a couple of requests in the that discussion for someone to upload all the sheets as a single image.
Articles in which this image appears
Treaty of Waitangi
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/Others
Creator
Archives New Zealand, with modifications by Insertcleverphrasehere
  • Support as nominator – — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Would probably be better if the backing for the damaged treaties were removed, leaving only the treaties themselves.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
That is the backing paper for the treaties. Which is part of them now. I already removed the backgrounds. Easy enough to to remove them though. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Removed. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)
  • Also, is that second treaty really slanted like that IRL?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm afraid I don't see the value in arranging all these documents in a single image. I'd suggest the pages should be in individual files nominated as a featured image set; which is certainly something we've promoted before (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/ButterflyScaleMicroscopy) though I can't actually see in mentioned the rules. (I'd also agree with Chris about removal of the backing paper - I see the argument that the backing paper is part of the current state of the treaties, but I don't think it has historical significance to make up for it distracting from the primary subject.) TSP (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the backing paper, might take the cache a while to catch up though.— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The value in arranging all these documents together is that, in context, they are not separate documents. Together these 9 documents are the Treaty. Each document by itself is not the treaty, though each contains the treaty text, there are just different sheets because they were all sent around the country separately (no email in the 19th century). While I agree that all the copies could be uploaded as a featured set, the Treaty as one image is actually more important from an encyclopedic value standpoint than any individual sheet by itself. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Assuming the relative sizes of the documents are accurately represented, this is a case where I think a composite image is superior as a featured set won't allow the reader to easily grasp the differences. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Paul 012. The relative sizes are accurate. I based the relative sizes off of the lower resolution national archives composite, and I have also checked with regards to pictures of the documents when they were on display (See here), just to check and make sure that the National Archives composite was also accurate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The documents can be read, and having them all together on the one image has strong EV - especially in light of the differences between the versions. I saw these documents on display at Wellington, and viewing them together has a lot of punch. Nick-D (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the white background makes the image seem rather washed out. Wonder if a dark background would look better? (Not sure though if the backing paper should be included in that case.) Also, is there a more meaningful order by which the treaties could be arranged other than by size, that would still allow for an aesthetically balanced image? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I just went and looked at the high quality copies made of the treaties that are on display at Te Papa, on those, they do not replicate the backing paper, which leads me to agree that these are not considered part of the treaties and should remain removed (per comments above and contrary to what I stated above). As for a dark background, looking on commons, other images of treaties do not use dark backgrounds, but rather use white or whatever was in the back of the scan/image of the treaty. As for order, the Waitangi Sheet was the first signed, so it should be on the left (It was first signed on Feb 6th, though additional signatures and another sheet of parchment were added and attached in March). As for the others, they were sent around the country to collect additional signatures over the next few months and there isn't really any meaningful 'order' to place them in. [2] and [3] use an order, but it is arbitrary, and other scholorary sources never refer to the treaty sheets by 'number' but rather by their names (although the Waitangi Sheet is always first), Archives NZ's ebook on the treaty does not list numbers, and the listed order in the ebook doesn't even match the numbers they chose for listing them for download. In short, aside from the Waitangi Sheet on the left, the others should probably just be placed in an aesthetically pleasing manner (I chose to maximise space).
As an additional note, I forgot to transclude this discussion for two days after creating it, so it would be nice to keep it open an extra couple days to see if it gets enough support. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Request for guidance: I've addressed lots of concerns by many of the editors above, but nobody seems keen to support. Not sure how to proceed as it seems that all the comments and changes to the image have derailed this proposal. I am willing to do whatever is necessary to improve the quality of the image, such as darken the background to some shade of grey or something? It seems silly that this should not be considered a featured image in some form. Would it be better with a slightly darker background colour? Would it be better if I moved the sheets slightly closer together? Should I just give up and upload all of the other sheets as independent images and nominate them as a featured set (or is this composite part of the featured set)? Just looking for some guidance here as I am willing and able but do not know what I have to do to improve the image to get it to meet FP criteria and I feel like I am running out of time. What is the policy on 're-noninations' if I work to address some of the issues? Pinging previous commenters. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Saguaro Sunset[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2018 at 00:52:44 (UTC)

Original – Image of a silhouetted saguaro cactus in Saguaro National Park at sunset
Reason
It meets all the criteria (very high res, nice composition, free, etc)
Articles in which this image appears
Saguaro National Park, Tucson, Arizona
FP category for this image
Places
Creator
Tucsonre
  • Support as nominatorKees08 (Talk) 00:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Beautiful photo (a bit grainy and unsharp. though), but where's the EV? --Janke | Talk 08:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, CA and noise. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose noise and no EV Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)



Crocus tommasinianus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2018 at 18:38:53 (UTC)

Original – Flowering Woodland crocus (Crocus tommasinianus‎) in the garden reserve Jonkervallei, Joure, Netherlands.
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the flower.
Articles in which this image appears
Crocus tommasinianus or at Crocus.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
--Famberhorst (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Right. The image should be in at least C. tommasinianus before nomination. The English Wikipedia requires that images be used on the English Wikipedia before they can be given featured picture status.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done. English Wikipedia added. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support  —  --Janke | Talk 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wondering a bit about saturation. Sca (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Based on the Commons category, the depth of the flowers' color seems to vary somewhat between specimens and lighting. The photographer would be best to ask about how they looked in person, but from browsing the category the saturation appears reasonable.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Answer The color is okay. It was clear and sunny weather. The flowers are illuminated by the sun.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please caption the image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unfortunately, the image has now been removed by other editors from both the articles it was added to; so I think this nomination needs to be at least paused. I think it's a good and valuable image, but perhaps the nominator needs to look a bit further into how images are used on Wikipedia - in particular, I think adding it to articles with the caption "Beautiful flowers of Crocus tommasinianus" has inclined other editors to remove it, as image captions on Wikipedia should to be neutral and descriptive and avoid puffery. Reading through WP:IUP and WP:CAPTION may be helpful in suggesting how to add images to articles in a way that makes clear their encyclopedic value. TSP (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)



View over Gstaad[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 16:50:58 (UTC)

Original – View over Gstaad
Reason
Simply a beautiful view over Gstaad.
Articles in which this image appears
Gstaad
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
GstaadTourismus
  • Support as nominatorTbvdm (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice photo, but size is borderline minimum requirement. Also, creator name may suggest a commercial uploader? --Janke | Talk 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Less than ordinary and doesn't show village at all well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to size. feminist (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Reasonable technical quality, but composition seems rather haphazard, as if someone looked out from the balcony of his chalet and snapped a quick one. Sca (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Besides which, it's a promotional shot from the G$taad Tourism Office. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yeah, it sort of looked like a promotional image to me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)



Kifli in Serbian cuisine[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 08:24:34 (UTC)

Original – Kifli (Serbian cuisine)
Reason
good shot of Kifli
Articles in which this image appears
Kifli
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Petar Milošević
  • Support as nominatorPetarM (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No disrespect, but they don't look too appetizing, compared with the other photos in the article. --Janke | Talk 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Janke This is what healty food look like. In description you could read "Kifli made with spelt flour". So not wheat flour, and they taste very good. One might think they are overburnt, but they arent. Brown looking due to flour and eggs. --PetarM (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    Just to clarify; it's not the color, it's the irregular and all different shapes that kills the photo for me. Health food can look good, too! ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support For me is fine...--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks tasty enough to me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support although probably better with a cleaner background.©Geni (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Kifli made with spelt flour (Serbian cuisine).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)



Portrait of the princess sissi in venice[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 19:13:46 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of the princess sissi in venice
Reason
is a important Portrait in Venice
Articles in which this image appears
Empress Elisabeth of Austria
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
LivioAndronico
  • Support as nominatorLivioAndronico (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – the glare on the upper part of the canvas is distracting. It look like it can be removed with better lighting. Bammesk (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the original upload better!, I think it is more natural. Just my opinion. On a positive note: good EV and very good addition to the encyclopedia. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)



Suspended nominations[edit]

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