Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

Ermina Zaenah[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 04:09:44 (UTC)

Original – A three-quarter portrait of Ermina Zaenah, an Indonesian actress who acted in thirty films during the 1950s and produced four.
Reason
I was quite pleased when I acquired two reasonably good condition postcards showing Ermina Zaenah, an Indonesian actress whose career ended shortly before the fall of Sukarno. This, I think, has the better EV and composition of the two (the other being File:Ermina Zaenah, portrait (c 1960).jpg). I know the image is a bit small, but this was necessitated by the image being a) postcard size (this scan is equivalent to 500 PPI) and b) printed on silk print paper (which produces a honeycomb pattern that needed removal).
Articles in which this image appears
Ermina Zaenah
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Uncredited (style is similar to Djakartawood); restored by me.



Skyline of Dallas[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 22:32:11 (UTC)

Original – Skyline of Dallas
Reason
Similar in quality to other featured pictures. A good view of the city's skyline from an elevated point. Clickable in its article.
Articles in which this image appears
List of tallest buildings in Dallas
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
Michael Barera
  • Support as nominatorSandvich18 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a clear shot, but is soft around the edges and I wonder if that's a limitation of the camera? Would be more useful if all the buildings are identified with notes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you show me an example of an image with buildings identified? You can see something similar in the article but I'm not sure how I would go about formatting the image description. Sandvich18 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)



Belenois gidica abyssinica on Distephanus angulifolius flowers[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2017 at 13:00:03 (UTC)

Original – Male African veined white on Distephanus angulifolius flowers
Reason
High-quality image of a widely-distributed butterfly
Articles in which this image appears
Belenois_gidica
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Alandmanson
  • Support as nominatorAlandmanson (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's something wrong with the tonal scale, here. White is a flat grey - is this image manipulated (levels, curves)? --Janke | Talk 14:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, you are right - fixed --Alandmanson (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Still not quite right, IMHO. Is it originally a bit over-exposed? --Janke | Talk 18:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough definition for FP. ps I think it may be incorrectly identified. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We should never rely on Wikipedia! - I was looking at the funet website which I usually trust, but hunting further on the internet you are Ok to assume that yours will be abyssinica. I've left my images (not as good as yours) unspecified as to sub-species. Best wishes Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)



Skyline of Datong, China[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2017 at 02:56:47 (UTC)

Original – Skyline of Datong, China
City view. Datong, Shanxi.
Reason
There are few pictures of Chinese cities that are featured, so I started searching for good ones. Apart from being an accurate depiction of the skyline (taken from a large mountain I believe), I think it meets all criteria, however there are two versions depending on your belief in posthoc editing. The second is the original.
Articles in which this image appears
Datong
FP category for this image
Places/Urban
Creator
Chlukoe
  • Support alt as nominator However, I want to post the thumb of the original (unedited) photograph for an alternate in all it's polluted glory but I don't know how. It is found here: [4] Mattximus (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the sharpening and contrast enhancement are probably improvements, but the more extreme colour/saturation shift in the greens, and in particular the artificial blue sky, may be frowned upon. On the whole I'd suggest that editing to bring out the detail is good; editing which specifically presents a false reality is bad. TSP (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I generally agree, but couldn't figure out how to show a thumb of the alternate. I feel the new one only changed the colour/saturation and not sharpness, but I'm not an expert. I kinda prefer the alt since it is more realistic, but I can see either way so it's up to others to see which they prefer, if any. Mattximus (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want them both to be considered, you should upload the retouched version as a separate file. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)



Tooth decay[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 07:55:48 (UTC)

Original – Human tooth showing signs of decay ("carries") in three common places along with labels for same
Reason
Freely licensed image, meets all the requirements for an SVG file. See description on Commons for more about the significance/ juicy details of the image (like, What are there all those funny keyhole things in the enamel? and is the dentin really shaped like that? and this is why I need to brush more, and floss, etc.).
Articles in which this image appears
Tooth decay
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams
Creator
KDS4444
  • Support as nominatorKDS4444 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 05:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Makes me think of the waiting room at Dr. Kanne's office – he of the low-speed drill. Sca (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm a bit particular for images like these. I wonder where the nerves came from, the just sort of materialize near the base of the tooth. They should be similar to the vasculature. Mattximus (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)



White peacock butterfly[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2017 at 14:04:04 (UTC)

Original – White peacock (Anartia jatrophae jatrophae), the sub-species from Trinidad and Tobago
Reason
illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Anartia jatrophae
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp



Rufous-tailed flycatcher (Myiarchus validus)[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2017 at 09:16:48 (UTC)

Original – The rufous-tailed flycatcher (Myiarchus validus) is an endemic species, only found on the Island of Jamaica
Reason
High definition image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Rufous-tailed flycatcher
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 05:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Good comp and lighting; nice color balance. Sca (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Another great picture. Sandvich18 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – very nice. Bammesk (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – per nom. Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Yet another awesome picture of a bird species! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 • It's such a charming photo that hate to mention this, but I just noticed that the article is the very briefest of stubs. Assuming the pic. will be promoted, it would be good not to run it until someone, hopefully, upgrades the article. Sca (talk) 15:13, 28 July 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 July 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 July 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.

Larsen C ice shelf - 2016 rift[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 03:54:00 (UTC)

Original – 2016 rift in the Larsen ice shelf. For full context, see source article: [1]
ALT 1 – cropped version (CSS image crop)
ALT 1 – cropped version (CSS image crop)
Reason
Quality image of a recent geological event. A rift in Antarctic ice, photographed November 2016, expected to break into an iceberg in 2017. Possibly the first stage of a process that could raise sea levels by 4 inch (10 cm). The airplane engines help establish the viewing angle / position. Good EV, photo is discussed in the article Larsen ice shelf.
Articles in which this image appears
Larsen ice shelf, 2017 in science
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
NASA, photo by: John Sonntag, upload by: User:Melikamp
  • Support as nominator – prefer original. Bammesk (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment- Please select other image where third objects don't distract. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I don't necessarily object to seeing the aircraft engines at the side, but the framing of this shot is unfortunate, with the rift also off to one side and too great an expanse of snowy ice on the other. Sca (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - It is a very rare photograph showing the rift. The quality is not that great as there are some CAs, but the EV is so high that I am willing to overlook those. Nikhil (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The engines are not right for this type of photo. There must surely be a better one somewhere. Also caption is misleading. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I sourced the caption, please feel free to edit (reword, improve) the caption. Bammesk (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • How about a vertical crop? Crop out the engine at left, and balance by cropping at right - file is large enough... --Janke | Talk 17:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This photo is a documentary so I prefer keeping it as is. (but I have no objection if alternatives are introduced) Bammesk (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I don't mind the aircraft. This photograph was all over the place when they first announced the rift so the EV is exceptional. I don't find much wrong with the quality either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be improved by cropping on the right, to get the rift more or less in the center. Sca (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I introduced an alternate. Will create a file version if/when needed. Bammesk (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alt. 1 – Now we're looking at what we're looking at. Sca (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original pretty much per Etienne: this is probably the best-known photo of this topic, and does a good job of illustrating it. The engines aren't ideal, but do make for an interesting shot. I prefer the original to the crop as it more clearly displays the scale of the rift. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original -- Historical moment. Don't mind the engine.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original - better sense of scale with the wide shot. Mattximus (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support original - great one! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:LarsenC photo 2016315 lrg.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)



George A. Romero[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 02:11:22 (UTC)

OriginalGeorge A. Romero (1940-2017), director of Night of the Living Dead and noted pioneer in the horror film genre.
Reason
With George Romero's resent passing, looking at his image I thought it meets the criteria for Featured Picture status.
Articles in which this image appears
George A. Romero, It (miniseries), Millennium (The X-Files), +2
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Flickr
  • Support as nominatorGamerPro64 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor photo (framing, etc.) --Z 12:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Romero has been nominated for listing only under Recent Deaths on WP:ITN/C. There has been some discussion at ITN about running mugs with notable RD listings, but so far the idea hasn't been accepted. If it were accepted, that's where this pic. (much cropped) would be appropriate. Looks like this 2009 pic. has been in the infobox at George A. Romero for quite some time, so it's not really "adding" any EV now. Sca (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Z. Shame we can't get anything better now (unless we reach out to a professional photograph who did work with Romero) but this is too far below the quality threshold. I have no idea what Sca's rambling has to do with the FP criteria; ITN has nothing to do with this process, and Romero's physical appearance did not change too much between 2009 and his death. Length of time an image has been in an infobox is generally viewed as a positive, rather than a negative.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 • Please see WP:NP.
Criterion No. 5Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
Note that adds is a present-tense verb. The criterion does not say added. As mentioned above, the photo is eight years old, and it needs cropping. Sca (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood that criterion. If it has been in the article for quite a while it adds to the EV because it's stable, and hasn't been replaced suggesting no better alternative has been found. It's a good thing if it's been there for so many years, it indicates that it is likely the best photo we have at the moment. Mattximus (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, Sca misunderstood the criteria. "Adds significant encyclopedic value" means compared to no image being present, not "compared to ten years ago" or "compared to last month". In fact, stability is often used as evidence of encyclopedic value at FPC, something that Sca -- who has commented at this venue frequently for at least three years now -- should know.
Compare the similar wording at WP:NFCC: "[images] ... significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The only difference is that the NFCC is explicit with the clause "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", whereas the FP? considers itself already clear.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 • No one is proposing removing the image from Romero. Thus, to speak of the article without his pic. is a red herring. And yes, FP's should be images that are new or recent to English Wikipedia. This reflects the basic reader-interest factor of timeliness.
 • In this case, the nominator may be a fan of Romero's work who felt moved to nominate this photo when he died (on July 16). This is speculation on my part, but if correct it's not a valid reason, IMO, for nominating the photo as a main page feature. Among other considerations, it's likely that, if promoted, it would not appear until some weeks or months after the subject's death – in which case it would not be timely topically either. (Hence, there's been discussion of running mugs with RD-only listings at ITN.)
 • As to ITN having nothing to do with FPs, au contraire: Both are fixtures on the main page of Wikipedia – our front page – seen by millions daily. Sca (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
"FP's should be images that are new or recent to English Wikipedia" this is simply not true, nor has it ever been true, nor do I see it becoming a rule in the future. Where did you get this information from? Mattximus (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Mattximus; Sca, I think you're way off here. There is no requirement at all that "FP's should be images that are new or recent to English Wikipedia", just as there is no requirement that FAs, FLs, and so on need to be new to the English Wikipedia. That's not part of the criteria and it's not something I've ever seen playing a factor in discussions here before. If you feel it should be part of the criteria, you can propose it, but I can't see the proposal getting far. (Also, FP and POTD are separate; there's nothing stopping us promoting images to FP status but holding them from the main page if there is a genuine worry.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


Pantheon (Rome) - Dome interior[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 18:34:27 (UTC)

Original – Pantheon (Rome) - Dome interior
Reason
Famous dome of Rome
Articles in which this image appears
Pantheon
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
LivioAndronico (talk)
  • Support as nominatorLivioAndronico (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the slightly tight crop on the right border. --Z 12:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Livioandronico2013: He's blocked for 6 months... Face-wink.svg lNeverCry 05:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Could use a very slight crop at left or a little more space at right to even things out. lNeverCry 05:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
     Done INeverCry and Z. Better? Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    Unfortunately that would hide the lowest row of the cavities. --Z 11:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The far right side, particularly the lower right area is too soft, it is noticeable compared to other areas. It might be a lens issue, if you used a kit lens, that might be the reason. Bammesk (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)




Granada cathedral panorama[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2017 at 22:37:12(UTC)

Granada cathedral
Reason
The cathedral of the Incarnation in Granada is a magnificient example of the 15-16th century architecture of southern Spain. Unique 300 degree-wide panorama shows the majority of its interior, with carefully tuned HDR to maintain perception of depth while keeping all features of the illuminated ceiling and pillars, as well as the details in the darker side chapels.
Articles in which this image appears
Granada_Cathedral
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
User:FDominec, using Hugin
  • Support as nominatorFDominec (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would prefer this sort of image with no tourists and it doesn't appear to be of the same quality that we often see of Church interiors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Despite the size of the image, detail is definitely substandard. Perspective seems a bit skewed too. Sca (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Whoa, terrible pixelation makes it very hard to see any detail. Mattximus (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. --Z 12:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support - --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)



Saltwater limpet, renomination[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2017 at 10:56:45 (UTC)

Original – Anatomical diagram of the saltwater limpet Patella vulgata
Reason
Passes W3C validation, meets all other criteria for an SVG diagram. Previous nomination failed to earn enough "Support" votes to qualify, have now revised it greatly. Already a featured picture and a finalist for Picture of the Year 2016 on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Limpet, Patellogastropoda
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator
KDS4444
  • Support as nominatorKDS4444 (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm not sure about the black background, even more so if it's a gradient. Why did you change it? Other than that, I think it looks great. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Better and clearer with white background. lNeverCry 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd support with a white background. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It looked to me like the shell was coming out odd-looking with a white background, and that its presence was clearer without it. Right now, however, this doesn't look so bad, so I have changed it back to white again. Thoughts? @Sandvich18:, @INeverCry: KDS4444 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The labels look disorganized (text alignment is inconsistent and looks disorganized, positioning of the lines can be adjusted to make them look more organized, some lines terminate on the shadow area). Bammesk (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks much better! I agree with Bammesk, though - sometimes the label is too far from the end of its corresponding line, and there shouldn't be any text on the shadow. Speaking of the shadow, could it be stretched a bit to the left? Sandvich18 (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards oppose, but there are just some small issues with the text aligning with the line that can be fixed. Look at dorsal food channel, that text seems to be floating quite far from any line. It just looks disorganized. Mattximus (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mattximus: You are leaning towards oppose... because of the location of some of the lines, a thing fairly easy to fix. Do you or does anyone have any problems with the drawing, which is the centerpiece of the illustration? Because I can fix the placement of lines if you do not like how they are on the page, and I can change the size and location of the text if it "seems disorganized", but what I would like to hear, now that I have worked on the illustration for over two years, is that you support the drawing as a Wikipedia Featured Picture, and have some fairly minor concerns over the text and lines 'n' such! I created this drawing out of thin air— I drew it from some simple black-and-white 2-dimensional 100-year-old biology text book pictures and augmented with colors taken from some more-recent overhead photographs to create a rendition of this animal in the way it looks in vivo, alive in its shell, in a way it can never be photographed and has never before been drawn, and the result is technically highly accurate and very complex, and I think it is worth being a featured picture on Wikipedia. Could we make that the issue, while I go back and switch around the lines and labels (which I will be glad to do)? KDS4444 (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure what you want, if I say the word support then that means I support the entire image, not just part of it. So I can't do that until the words and lines are fixed, and some other minor issues (where is the mouth? does it have one eye or two? Is it actually an eye? Why is it tentacles (plural), and not cerebral ganglia? etc...). The picture is very nice if that is what you want, but the procedure here is to only support if/when everything in the image is perfect. Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • KDS4444: I see the changes, much better. May I suggest a couple of things: 1- now that the font is smaller, many (most) labels can be single line text (not double), that way there won't be any misalignment in the left/right justification of text lines, BTW not all browsers display SVG text and text alignment exactly the same, single lines eliminate one browser factor/freedom. 2- once the text is mostly single line, then perhaps (or perhaps not) some of the text and associated lines can be brought in closer to the shell (centerpiece), not too close to congest things, but closer than you have now. I am leaning to support, but I like to see at least suggestion #1 implemented. Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC) .. cleaned up reply. Bammesk (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Have now placed all text on individual lines, have distinguished "left" or "right" for those labeled organs which are bilateral, and have rearranged some of the labels and lines so that they should be easier to associate with each other. It looks like it is rendering correctly when viewed in a browser window, though the Commons PNG version of the file still seems to be putting too much space between some of the labels and the lines. If anyone has suggestions on this, I am open to trying to fix it. Are there any other aspects that I should still try to adjust or fix? KDS4444 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • About too much space between labels and lines . . . You need to "right-justify" the text in those instances. Currently all your labels are left-justified. See the first couple of minutes of this video. Also, it helps to center-justify some of the labels, for instance "Digestive gland", and others as you see fit. A couple of other minor fixes: "stato-cyst" has an extra dash, "Perivisceral lobe" has an extra space between the two words. You can always renominate the image if you run out of time. Bammesk (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC) . . . BTW labels look fine on your other FPs: [5], [6], [7]. Bammesk (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ...Or I can convert the text to outlines, since this will finally preserve my original intentions with regard to the text (I had much of the text right justified already, but it refused to appear that way in the PNG version of the image). I think this will resolve concerns with regard to the appearance of the text, though it looks like it will be too late to save this nomination, as two support votes (one from me) and one oppose does not bode well for a 3rd nomination, does it... And I do not know what more to do. The wall seems to be brick and my head is getting contused. KDS4444 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks great, that's a Support vote from me. And I believe INeverCry's vote could be overlooked since it's pertaining to an older version of this image. Let's hope it gets promoted! Sandvich18 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 20:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a great diagram, and I think most of the concerns above have been addressed - it would be a shame for it to fail again due to lack of quorum. TSP (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Looking again, I think this actually already reaches quorum? I'd missed Sandvich18 and Bammesk's support votes because they were in the discussion.) TSP (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yay! Yes, I think we are there now. KDS4444 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Saltwater Limpet Diagram-en.svg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)



Female bare-faced curassow[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2017 at 20:59:36 (UTC)

Original – Bare-faced curassow (Crax fasciolata) female head.JPG
Reason
The head of this bird is its defining feature. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Bare-faced curassow
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
charlesjsharp

Promoted File:Bare-faced curassow (Crax fasciolata) female head.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)



Lang's short tail blue (Leptotes pirithous) male[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2017 at 20:41:17 (UTC)

Original – Male Lang's short tail blue butterfly (Leptotes pirithous)
Reason
quality image illustrating the article. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Leptotes pirithous
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 22:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – not used in any article in the English wikipedia, and we already have a FP of this here nominated a month ago. Bammesk (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC) ... struck per below. Bammesk (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • My error @Bammesk:, I linked to wrong article. Different species. sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Lang's short tail blue (Leptotes pirithous) male underside.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)



Irises screen (kakitsubata-zu) (two panels)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2017 at 23:50:16 (UTC)

Original – Left panel
Also – Right panel
Alternate – right panel
Reason
My third and likely last nomination of an iconic image of Japanese art, for the time being at least. Irises (紙本金地著色燕子花図, kakitsubata-zu) is a pair of six-panel folding screens (byōbu) by the Japanese artist Ogata Kōrin of the Rinpa school, from 1702, and now held by the Nezu Museum in Tokyo. They are shown in the reverse of the current (2004) 5000 yen note. While the originals remained in Japan, it is believed that a woodcut reproduction may influenced the Impressionist works of Vincent van Gogh, including his Irises.
Articles in which this image appears
Both panels are used in Irises screen, but there are versions in other articles, from Ogata Kōrin and Byōbu to List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) and Genroku bunka. Some of these should probably be replaced.
FP category for this image
Artwork/East Asian art
Creator
Uploaded by commons:User:Bigjap from the Nezu Museum
  • Support as nominatorTheramin (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Below the minimum resolution.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Crisco, well below min resolution. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I am relatively new at this, so may I ask, what "minimum resolution" is being applied here? The first two panels are 2,000×835 and 2,009×830, and the third one is 3,904×1,636 pixels. I see WP:FP? indicates a minimum of 1,500 pixels in width and height, subject to exceptions. The third one, at least, meets the minimum, surely? And given these works are held in the private collection at the Nezu Museum, how would you propose that we secure a higher resolution image? Do we have to wait for the museum to release one with an appropriate licence? Theramin (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
      • We would either have to have someone at Nezu take images, or wait for the Museum to release a higher resolution digitization. Exceptions to the minimum resolution are only rarely granted; indeed, images such as painting digitizations are often held to a higher standard. I think there's only a couple exceptions made a year.
I wouldn't get behind the ALT as it is clearly oversaturated.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The original alternate was CMYK, which doesn't handle well in a browser. I replaced it with a RGB conversion (no other changes), and sure enough, the saturation dropped... (Remember to purge the page cache!) --Janke | Talk 07:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Janke. That looks much better.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Fine, so I guess that means the two original images are hopeless? I'll let you all decide between yourselves whether the third one qualifies or not. Theramin (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Would need the other panel in hi-res in order to qualify, not complete with just one... --Janke | Talk 06:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Haboku sansui (Broken Ink Landscape scroll)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2017 at 23:24:14 (UTC)

Original – The full hanging scroll of the Splashed-ink Landscape (haboku sansui, 破墨山水) by Sesshū Tōyō, 1495, including dedicatory inscription by the artist, and six poems by Zen monks
Reason
As the earlier one appears to be going well, I thought I would try another timeless classic image of Japanese art. The Broken Ink Landscape scroll (haboku sansui-zu, 破墨山水図) is a splashed-ink landscape painting on a hanging scroll. It was made by the Japanese artist Sesshū Tōyō in 1495, in the Muromachi period. The ink wash painting is a National Treasure of Japan and is held by the Tokyo National Museum.
Articles in which this image appears
Just Haboku sansui for the full image, but an extract showing just the main landscape painting, without the accompanying poems, also appears on Buddhist art in Japan, List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings), haboku (illustrating hatsuboku), and Sesshū Tōyō.
FP category for this image
Artwork/East Asian art
Creator
User:Bamse from Emuseum
Main image extract
  • Support as nominatorTheramin (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - AGF on this, because the large image viewer isn't working.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Original. The bottom image is an extract (derivative, crop) of the top image labeled "Original", so I doubt we need it as a FP. I checked the top image at full size and found nothing unusual. Bammesk (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC) . . . P.S. inline citations in article Haboku sansui would be nice.
  • Support Original only. I am concerned that the article will be deleted as there are no inline citations, reducing the EV. Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


Small red damselflies mating[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 09:34:53 (UTC)

Original – Small red damselflies (Ceriagrion tenellum) mating, Ober Water, Hampshire, UK. The female is the form typica.
Reason
These are the UK's smallest damselflies and fly weakly close to the ground, often on boggy ground, making photographing them a soggy experience. High EV even though the image is not the lead picture. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Small red damselfly
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
charlesjsharp

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)



Savanna hawk[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 09:22:25 (UTC)

Original – Savanna hawk (Buteogallus meridionalis) from the Pantanal in Brazil.
Reason
illustrates article clearly. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Savanna hawk, Daggett's eagle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
charlesjsharp
  • sorry, not sure what you want me to do @Bammesk:. I'm not an ornithologist. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a suggestion, not a requirement. I figured nominators are more likely to have an interest in the subject of the article. I had to look up ornithologist!! you never know how many "logists" there are! I found an online source, I think I can do something. Bammesk (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Savanna hawk (Buteogallus meridionalis).JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)



Shōrin-zu byōbu (Pine Trees screen) (two panels)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:07:29 (UTC)

Original – Left panel
Also – Right panel
Reason
The Pine Trees screen (Shōrin-zu byōbu, 松林図 屏風) is a pair of six-panel folding screens (byōbu) by the Japanese artist Hasegawa Tōhaku. These timeless classic images of Japanese art are widely used, and already featured on Commons and :ja.
Articles in which this image appears
(left panel) Shōrin-zu byōbu (article on the work), Byōbu (type of work - a folding screen), Hasegawa Tōhaku (artist), typical of the Hasegawa school, Ma (negative space), Buddhist art in Japan, List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)
(right panel) History of painting, Culture of Japan, Ink wash painting, Landscape painting, History of Asian art, Japanese painting, Japanese aesthetics, List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings), Japanese pine, Shōrin-zu byōbu
FP category for this image
Artwork/East Asian art
Creator
Uploaded by User:Bamse, from Emuseum
Also
My first time trying this process, so please excuse screw-ups!
  • Support as nominatorTheramin (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support everyone. Theramin (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Correction below per Janke and Bamse. there are stitching or scan jumps where the panels meet, visible at full size, for instance on the top image labeled "Original – Left panel" the jumps are at (x,y)=(2855,855), (2855,2375), (2855,3900), (2855,5425), (2855,6955) pixels relative to top left corner. Similar jumps where the other panels meet. Also an artifact at (x,y)=(5600,25). The bottom image has similar artifacts. Not sure if this is a dis-qualifier though. Bammesk (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure they are stitching artifacts? They don't look like that, rather like cuts & folds in the canvas keeping the parts together when zig-zag-folded. --Janke | Talk 07:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I also suspect that these are due to the folding mechanism rather than stitching artifacts. A few points to support this:
  • (i) they only appear at every second connection (i.e. between the 1st and 2nd, between the 3rd and 4th and between the 5th and 6th panels), which makes sense if you consider that the screens are zig-zag folded
  • (ii) if they were stitching errors, why would they appear at such particular spots?
  • (iii) what you call "artifacts" looks a lot like the connection in this image (though I don't know if this screen actually uses such hinge)
  • (iv) in any case, whatever they are, they don't affect the artwork at all bamse (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. Thanks for fixing my bad. At full size (100%) the spots looked abnormal. But now zooming in at 200% they look like an integral part of the canvas/artwork. Bammesk (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – inline citations in article Shōrin-zu byōbu would be nice. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Fulfils criteria. --Janke | Talk 05:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice scan but I am concerned the main article will be deleted as it has no inline citations whatsoever, which would then reduce the EV. Mattximus (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Atsme📞📧 02:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Gnosis (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - left hand screen.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Promoted File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - right hand screen.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:35, 6 July 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.