Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FIC)
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 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]

The "Third Imperial Fabergé egg"[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 09:10:45 (UTC)

Original – The long-believed-lost "Third Imperial Fabergé egg"
Reason
Here goes: on technical grounds, this diagram of a Fabergé egg is freely-licensed, is W3C valid, is raster-free, and contains only correctly-scaled (em-based) freely-licensed font with alternate sans-serif font family which should render correctly in any browser. The text has been correctly aligned and justified on each side of the object. It has been included in the corresponding article for more than seven days without objection. On artistic grounds, this image depicts with (I've been told) almost photographic realism (check it out!) one of the long-missing eggs for which no freely licensed image (other than a very poor photograph from the turn of the century) currently exists. No single photo could depict the egg in both its closed and open positions, as shown here— between this unique characteristic and its highly accurate (yet entirely vector-based) rendering of its subject matter, I believe this image qualifies as worthy of being considered a Featured Picture. Am open to suggestions for improvement if any are made, please indicate below (and as a special request, please do not vote "Oppose pending a minor technical request" of some sort— it is much more encouraging to be told "Support pending some minor technical request", yes?). I've chosen the category "History/ Others" for its category, but am not sure that "Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle" or "Diagrams, drawings, and maps" aren't better. You decide. Also please consider that it is not a bird, flower, or insect, which by itself makes it stand out!
Articles in which this image appears
Third Imperial (Fabergé egg)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator
KDS4444
  • Support as nominatorKDS4444 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – An extremely well-executed svg, but slicing a Fabergé egg in two kind of kills it for me... I might support a version just showing it open, but would definitely prefer a real photo (I found the photo I assume you used as a basis for your svg, but it is of course copyrighted...) PS: What's with the two "glowing" rivets on the bottom ring? --Janke | Talk 09:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)



Cirsium eriophorum (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska)[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2017 at 07:29:01 (UTC)

OriginalCirsium eriophorum (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska)
Reason
best close-up shot in scope (with blossomnig flower head)
Articles in which this image appears
Cirsium eriophorum
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
Petar Milošević
  • Support as nominatorPetarM (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support High quality for FP on Wikipedia. I wasn't supportive as FP on Commons because of crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Very well executed technically, and a good clear photo of the subject. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)



Strip photography (Cablecar)[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 12:01:57 (UTC)

Original – A fixed slit photo of a San Francisco cable car, showing prominent striped background. In slit photography, the photographer captures a 2-dimensional image as a sequence of 1-dimensional images over time, rather than a single 2-dimensional at one point in time (the full field).
Reason
Very interesting example of a novel photographic technique.
Articles in which this image appears
Strip photography
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator
Dllu
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- Absolutely, made me read the article - that's what FPs are for! --Janke | Talk 13:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --PetarM (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as creator - dllu (t,c) 21:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Now this is EV Mattximus (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Great EV. Never even heard of this before and the picture captures interest. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support new to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support My God, yes. KDS4444 (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)



Chaco chachalaca[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 19:27:57 (UTC)

Original – Chaco chachalaca (Ortalis canicollis pantanalensis) in Brazil
Reason
High quality image showing the head of this noisy bird. Illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Chaco chachalaca
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Main object is in the middle, compo isnt good. --PetarM (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Agree, this is a bit "uneasy" to look at. The dirty beak is also off-putting... --Janke | Talk 10:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)



Two-tailed pasha[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 19:18:45 (UTC)

OriginalTwo-tailed pasha (Charaxes jasius jasius) in Sithonia, Greece. The only charaxes butterfly in Europe.
Reason
Illustrates article well. Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Charaxes jasius
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp



Mars[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 08:52:00 (UTC)

Original – Mars in natural colour in 2007
Reason
Natural color looks good.
Articles in which this image appears
Mars, Planet, Revelation 12 Sign
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator
ESA
  • Support as nominatorJCP (a.k.a. John Carlo Pagcaliwagan) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It looks very good and clearly enhances the article on Mars. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me, it's odd there isn't a higher resolution of this image however... Mattximus (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Of course, top EV. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 12:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)



Spotted fritillary (Melitaea didyma) underside Macedonia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 21:38:44 (UTC)

Original – a spotted fritillary butterfly (Melitaea didyma) in the Republic of Macedonia
Reason
Illustrates article well. Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons
Articles in which this image appears
spotted fritillary
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp



Pampas deer[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 20:39:49 (UTC)

Original – Pampas deer taken in a ranch in Rocha Department, Uruguay (2015)
Reason
Featured on Commons. "Bluish haziness and noise in the background," as Daniel Case put it in the Commons nomination, "[while] normally a flaw actually makes the image stronger."
Articles in which this image appears
Pampas deer, Pampas
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Fernando da Rosa
  • Support as nominatorHameltion (talk, contribs) 20:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm surprised that it was made an FP, but it did pick up ~150 votes in POTY so I will not vote against it. Wiipedia article should be edited to show this as hard antlers and the main image as antlers in velvet. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand what change you're asking for. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Describe the antlers in both images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I see. I don't know the names for the specific types of antlers, unfortunately. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Important details for FPs I think. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)



Fire blight[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 15:05:32 (UTC)

OriginalGala apple tree showing "scorched" leaves from fire blight infection.
Reason
High quality image, shows effects from fire blight, well focused and cropped.
Articles in which this image appears
Fire blight, Australia–New Zealand relations
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
Creator
Peggy Greb from Agricultural Research Service
  • Support as nominatorHameltion (talk, contribs) 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have remove this from the Australia–New Zealand relations article as the image appears to be taken in the USA, though no geolocation is given. PLease put it back if I am wrong. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, only one apple and a small bit of branch is in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)



Delist:File:Using the caliper new en.gif[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 19:50:10 (UTC)

a suitable caption for the image
Reason
The animation is showing an incorrect way to read calipers. The proper reading here should be 2.470 cm not 2.47 cm and a reading of calipers should also always state the error associated with the reading. In this case the proper reading is 2.470 cm ± 0.005 cm. As it stands, this is a reading that did not use the full accuracy of the shown instrument and neglects the important error part of the measurement so crucial when using calipers.
Articles this image appears in
Calipers, Vernier scale,
Previous nomination/s
Original Featured image discussion
Nominator
Jason Quinn (talk)
  • DelistJason Quinn (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – The gif shows the basics. The .005 is instrument resolution, not accuracy nor error. Adding it will be misleading. Bammesk (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments Several remarks: A) allowing something that "shows the basics" yet teaches something wrong would be a pretty low standard for our featured images, which are supposed to be the finest images we can offer. B) this image doesn't show the basics. It shows how somebody untrained might incorrectly read the measurement. The 2.47 cm reading completely ignores the fact that these calipers have a 20 lined vernier scale rather than a 10. C) As for error, I believe you are using "instrument resolution" in effectively the same way I am using "error" above. Technically, of course, I am referring to absolute error (which gives the range the true value must lie if the instrument is otherwise perfect. (This does not include other forms of error such as the zero point error and any systematic error from the instrument which would affect accuracy.) It is the absolute error that limits the precision of the instrument and it is under most circumstances and by default what is meant by "error" for the instrument barring systematics. No matter what, to suggest that giving an error on a measurement is more misleading than not giving any error is contrary to basic teachings of measurement. Calipers usually even have an etching that give the "instrument resolution" so that would be one way of handling that in an improved image. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • A) The gif doesn't show anything wrong. It just doesn't show what you suggest it should. B and C) The resolution is already etched as 1/20. There is no need to highlight it again. Doing so with a plus/minus sign in front of measurement reading is wrong. It would conflate resolution, accuracy, and error into one number (misleading and wrong). I don't object to highlighting the resolution (though I see no overwhelming need for doing so). I object to doing it with a plus/minus sign in front of the reading. Besides, with this type of caliper resolution is not a plus/minus thing. Bammesk (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten it does have a "1/20" for the resolution so I guess that's fine regarding the statement I've stricken above, although maybe "0.05 mm" or "0.005 cm" might be better. Your acknowledgement of 1/20 as the resolution contradicts your statement that the gif doesn't know anything wrong. The reading "2.47 cm" is not at that resolution. If a reading is not being at the full resolution of the instrument, rounding is involved and I fall to see how that's using the instrument correctly. It's like me stepping on my bathroom scale which has a kilogram resolution but only reading the tens place and ignoring the ones place. As for the plus/minus, that's standard notation in mathematics, engineering, and physics so I don't see why you are objecting to it. And the symbol is not "in front" of the reading but between the reading and the absolute error. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, adding the readout resolution of a measurement instrument following its measurement using a plus/minus format gives the wrong sense of measurement accuracy. Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Sidenote: introducing a self-defined terminology, absolute error, does not help the discussion. Nor does the false equivalency of reading 70kg as 7kg !
  • Surely Jason Quinn's example was meant to refer to reading 72 kg as 70 kg (or 72.3 kg as 72 kg). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. That's exactly right. Or in my case if the scale says 95 kg (and is rated for plus/minus 1 kg) but I "read it" as 90 kg. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. I took it in the context of dropping a trailing zero. Bammesk (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Tell me if I'm understanding the issue correctly. Jason Quinn is arguing that (1) the nominal reading here is incorrect because it includes too few significant figures (actually, looking closely at the image I think it looks more like it should read 2.475 than 2.470), and (2) including the reading error or resolution error is standard practice that should be shown in the image. Bammesk is directly arguing against the 2nd point, saying that it is being conflated with instrument resolution and "is wrong" (though this introductory course material doesn't seem to agree). Bammesk hasn't directly addressed the significant figures issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
1) You are understanding my position correctly. And, great eye! I agree. If you pause and zoom the image, it does appear that 2.475 is better! 2) As for the reading error, the "1/20" does imply that information but it would be much better if the error on the reading were made more explicit. The red text should display this information because when using calipers the error on the measurement is often just as important to know as the measurement itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This seems like rather trivial issue that should be easily fixable by those who know how; the error disputed reading lies only in the final frame of the animation. (That said, a 10-lined vernier scale might actually be better for illustrating the concept.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a line instrument would be better for pedagogical reasons. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Meant to say "10 line instrument" above. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Paul_012, there is no error in the final frame of the animation. Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Clarified. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, it appears that the significant figures issue (plus changing the readout unit to mm) had previously been addressed by Jollyroger in the 11 June 2007 version of the file, but was reverted by the original creator. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: As pointed out by Paul_012, the animation isn't even using the most "lined up" line on the vernier scale. At this point, I think this is a no brainer to call. This image is not featured image quality and would need to be modified to be considered. This is besides the resolution issue, which I also think is a deny level problem. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply – The line up at 2.470 is off by "one third of one pixel", not easy to measure and not enough to fail FP. Paul_012, for what I am saying (as you hinted above) revisit my replies above, and keep in mind that readout-resolution and measurement-accuracy are not the same thing. An example: [1], readout-resolution=.00005, measurement-accuracy=.0006. Attaching +/-readout-resolution to the outcome of a caliper measurement is misleading. About the trailing zero, I prefer 2.470, but 2.47 is not a show stopper for me, after all it is a zero and readout-resolution is marked on the instrument. Bammesk (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
1) That misalignment, small as it may be, is critical to this image. 2) This image is teaching how to read a vernier scale caliper; so it technically just showing the scale reading, not the measurement reading. The measurement itself would also take into account things like the zero point error and any other systematic error that affect measurement accuracy. Those are assumed to be zero for tools unless otherwise stated; otherwise we couldn't even take for granted things like the scale being machined with a proper linear scale. Most calipers are also temperature rated to work best at 20°C so temperature corrections are other systematic obvious ignored for the image. Unless there is a good reason, systematics are assumed zero unless they are a known problem. With calipers, the zero point is usually the greatest concern for a systematic. In this case I have trouble seeing the first frame clearly enough but it doesn't look like there's any zero point error. Nor is there's any reason to invoke any other of the large number of possible systematics that could affect the measurement error. A reading and the measurement coincide on an instrument with negligible systematic error corrections. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep although I would prefer the measurement in mm, not cm. OTOH, the scale on the caliper is in cm, so... Also, 2.47 is correct, since 2.470 implies an accuracy of 4 full digits, not attainable here (max. vernier resolution is 0.005, not 0.001) --Janke | Talk 05:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)



Schoolgirls in Bamozai[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 04:10:05 (UTC)

Original – Schoolgirls in Bamozai, Paktia Province, Afghanistan
Reason
It's been featured on Commons, and shows a class in Afghanistan, different from using indoor desks in other parts of the world.
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle (Better category?)
Creator
John Severns, U.S. Air Force
  • Support as nominatorHameltion (talk, contribs) 04:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Those unattentive boys in the background kinda spoils this snapshot. Not Wikipedias "best"... --Janke | Talk 13:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Very nice slice of life showing something besides violence. And boys will be boys the world over. Sca (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Composition is, as Janke implied, less than stellar, and the boys are quite distracting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per composition issues, not the greatest... Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Love the color. Image is also featured on four wikis and Commons. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Inaccurate title. And I really cannot see that this image has EV as it does not significantly improve any of the four articles and is not representative of education/literacy etc. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
  • Oppose While this is a useful photo, it doesn't clearly show that these children are in an outdoor school - a composition showing their teacher as well would be much superior. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Criticism on the basis of composition is very well and good, but look at this image: it shows in brilliant, beautiful color and with bright upturned faces the experience of education in a third world country. No teacher is present, but his/ her presence is more than implied by the faces of these students. They are not staring up at the clouds! And the boys in the background are absolutely perfect: they suggest an almost universal (if stereotypical) truth about boys and the educational process (I think I see myself in the kid in the orange shirt in the front row here). This image meets all the technical requirements (yes?); the criticisms based on composition don't hold up against what I see as a dramatic, eye-capturing moment in the lives of a group of children. The evidence of being an FP on all the other Wikis is not accidental. This is a great shot. It just is. I hope we won't hesitate in recognizing this. ( Charles, Mattximus, Chris, Nick, Janke, I have never asked any of you to do this before: please consider taking a second, harder look at this one. Ok? Thank you!) KDS4444 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2017 (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 September 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 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.
  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.

Al Gore[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 03:21:53 (UTC)

OriginalAlbert Arnold Gore Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is an American politician and environmentalist who served as the 45th Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton.
Reason
Well constructed, high resolution, clearly identifies the subject.
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Executive Office of the President of the United States
  • Support as nominatorHameltion (talk, contribs) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A 23-year-old promotional shot of a political celebrity. Sca (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – bland composition. Bammesk (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Overly grainy. I highly doubt a proper scan would have this much noise.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how one can say that any one particular promo shot can enhance an article on a politician. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Request withdrawn Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)



Stephen Colbert[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 22:39:59 (UTC)

OriginalStephen Tyrone Colbert is an American comedian, television host, actor, and writer. He is best known for hosting the satirical Comedy Central program The Colbert Report from 2005 to 2014, and hosting the CBS talk program The Late Show with Stephen Colbert beginning in September 2015.
Reason
There appears to be a high technical standard, high resolution, has good lighting, is under a free license, and it is used in quite a few articles. Should I write more? This is my first FP nomination. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Articles in which this image appears
Stephen Colbert, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of people from Charleston, South Carolina, List of people from Chicago, Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album, United States presidential election, 2020, 1964, and others
FP category for this image
Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Neil Grabowsky
  • Support as nominatorHameltion (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Overly compressed (6.4 megapixels at 683 KB?), cropped too tightly.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The crop is a Wikipedia creation - original here - so might be worth someone recropping; but the original is 36 megapixels at 2.9mb, which by my maths is even more compressed... though I have to admit that it *looks* OK to me. (On the uncropped photo a larger proportion is the uniform dark grey background.) TSP (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I just don't see the point, in terms of either reader interest or EV, in featuring portraits of widely known current entertainment personalities (or politicians, or sports stars) on the Main Page. Sca (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    We vote based on EV. And someone's face does provide the best EV for an article on a person, unless the person is known for doing something specific (like play tennis). Popularity is not to be considered when voting. Encyclopedias don't just use pictures of obscure people... Mattximus (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    As Matt said. Also, we're fortunate that some people donate/make available images like this, and that one or two editors are regularly in positions to take pictures themselves. Highlighting some of these images (that meet our standards, obviously) offers an incentive for further donations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Celebs get more than enough PR on their own. Sca (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See, that's the thing. You just think of FP as a PR machine, rather than a means of promoting growth on Wikipedia. Frankly, it's better for us if we have recognized celebs like Weird Al Yankovic as FPs; it is more likely to draw other photographers' attention.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
My loyalty is to our readers. Sca (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • So you're saying our readers wouldn't want to see a great picture of Stephen Colbert? Rather untenable position, that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
IYO. They can see him all the time elsewhere. Sca (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • So your loyalty is not to our readers wants, but the needs you perceive. Of course.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to quote something I saw in an old nomination (not sure if it's still the precedent):

I dislike the argument "it won't suit the main page"; FP is not POTD. thegreen J Are you green? 3 September 2007 5:27 PM

This image doesn't have to show up on the front page; I just think it should be recognized as pretty good. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)



Taj Mahal[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 06:56:06 (UTC)

Original – Taj Mahal in Agra, India
Reason
High quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears
Taj Mahal
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Asit Jain on Commons
  • Support as nominatorNikhil B (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cropped way too tight, makes for "uncomfortable viewing"... --Janke | Talk 07:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I like the sharpness and the lighting, but I agree the crop is too tight, no foreground, I would support if it wasn't so. Sidenote: we have 2 other FPs of this [2], [3]. Weak oppose (regretfully). Bammesk (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the iconic view of the Taj Mahal and I can't see why we would promote this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Janke. (Also, a structure that's been photographed so many times that it's a visual bromide.) – Sca (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Existing FPs are more than sufficient.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I replaced the lead image with the previously featured image (it is much better). Mattximus (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)



Suspended nominations[edit]

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