Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

Step 1: Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations.

Step 2: Create a subpage For Nominations To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button. For Delists (or Delist & Replace) To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.

Step 3: Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list ().

How to comment for Candidate Images Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional. Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly. You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case. Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly. Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version. How to comment for Delist Images Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture. Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture. Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture. You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion. To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. You may find the glossary useful when you encounter acronyms or jargon in other voters' comments. You can also link to it by using {{FPCgloss}}. Editing candidates If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so, but do not overwrite or remove the original. Instead, upload your edit with a different file name (e.g., add "edit" to the file name), and display it below the original nomination. Edits should be appropriately captioned in sequential order (e.g., Edit 1, Edit 2, etc), and describe the modifications that have been applied. Is my monitor adjusted correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that 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, .

FPCs needing feedback

Current nominations

Pontia edusa

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 08:27:08 (UTC)

Original – Pontia edusa butterfly in biosphere reserve near Rühstädt, by the river Elbe

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Pontia edusa

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Sven Damerow

• Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hohenwerfen Castle

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 07:57:37 (UTC)

Original – Hohenwerfen Castle, Werfen, Austria

Reason

High quality and high EV, showing nicely the surroundings of the castle

Articles in which this image appears

Hohenwerfen Castle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Arne Müseler

• Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Sleeping Gypsy

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 21:28:21 (UTC)

Original – The Sleeping Gypsy (1897) by Henri Rousseau

Reason

High quality. FP on Commons

Articles in which this image appears

The Sleeping Gypsy, Henri Rousseau

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Henri Rousseau

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Enough detail at 69 pixels per inch. EXIF says ISO 5000 but it's not noisy! Bammesk (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Famous painting. Does DPI really matter? I've always thought FPC has a pixel size requirement, not DPI on the original. (Larger is always better, of course, but this is already 3.4K x 5.4K...) --Janke | Talk 09:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• It shouldn't matter as long as the scan captures the details of a painting or drawing. For example a line drawn by pencil can easily be 0.5mm wide (0.020 inch) or less, so a resolution of 50 pixels per inch would barely capture such a line or detail. Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This is a big canvas, so even more resolution would be good for getting fine detail on the brushwork, but this is good enough for FP for now and we can replace if we ever get a really high-res scan. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Prehnite

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 19:28:26 (UTC)

Original – Prehnite (4.0 × 3.5 × 2.0 cm) from Southbury, Connecticut, USA

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Prehnite

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology

Creator

Ivar Leidus

• Support as nominator – MER-C 19:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

George Washington

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2021 at 11:08:38 (UTC)

Original – Portrait based on the unfinished Athenaeum Portrait by Gilbert Stuart, 1796

Reason

File was nominated in 2006 but didn't pass because it was too small at the time. Now, the resolution is high enough to see the cracks. The only FPs of Washington are engravings, so it would be nice to see a painting of him become an FP.

Articles in which this image appears

George Washington

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Gilbert Stuart

• Support as nominator – Wow (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  It doesn't show his wooden teeth, though. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Mount Ngauruhoe

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 17:45:53 (UTC)

Original – Panoramic view of Mount Ngauruhoe as seen from Mount Tongariro, with Mount Ruapehu in the background.

Reason

Panorama of Mount Ngauruhoe and surroundings in New Zealand, with Mount Ruapehu in the background. FP on Commons. According to the article, it is designated as an active volcano. Last eruption was in 1977 and minor activity alerts in 2006 and 2015.

Articles in which this image appears

Mount Ngauruhoe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

KennyOMG

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 19:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Radiated tortoise

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2021 at 14:44:23 (UTC)

Original – A radiated tortoise in Tsimanampetsotsa National Park, Madagascar

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC last week where it was featured unanimously. Critically endangered.

Articles in which this image appears

Radiated tortoise, Astrochelys

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – MER-C 14:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, hope that it will end up on the main page and more people will learn about the turtle. --Andrei (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think the green fringing on top of the shell is iridescence and not a camera artefact.©Geni (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for the nom, and I agree not artefacts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Giuseppe Arcimboldo

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 17:26:41 (UTC)

Original – Self-portrait, now in National Gallery in Prague, Google Art Project

Reason

good quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Giuseppe Arcimboldo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Giuseppe Arcimboldo/Google Art Project

• Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've been a fan of his art since I was a kid! --Janke | Talk 12:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 19:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A Negress

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2021 at 15:59:37 (UTC)

Original – A Negress by Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowicz

Reason

great quality, ev

Articles in which this image appears

A Negress, Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowicz, History of art, Murzyn, Women artists

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowicz, uploaded by User:BotMultichillT

• Support as nominator. For info: its a new upload to substitute this file of a low quality. – Andrei (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – I think some details from ref 3 can be added to the article. Bammesk (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palauenc05 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• oppose assuming the height and width dimensions have been reversed its only around 165DPI.©Geni (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  Not a reason to oppose. FPC counts pixels, not dpi. This is over 3K by 4K pixels, well over requirements. --Janke | Talk 22:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Geni: and yet your screen has around 96 dpi. Than how come to judge higher dpi !? Must be some new "rule". PP are just photographers "by birth". --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Big Parade

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2021 at 14:08:27 (UTC)

Play media

Original – The Big Parade, King Vidor's acclaimed 1925 silent war film

Reason

This is a high-quality reproduction of the now-public domain silent film The Big Parade, featuring the most complete runtime available. (The 1931 score by William Axt is still copyrighted and is thus not included in the file.)

Articles in which this image appears

The Big Parade, King Vidor

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment

Creator

King Vidor

• Support as nominator – PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This upload was done less than a week ago. Also I'm not sure if it not having the score hinders it to be a Featured Picture. GamerPro64 05:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Besides the low bitrate (621 kbps at the time of the upload), the video resolution (480p) is particularly low compared to the Blu-ray source. I assume the upload is a direct conversion of the .mp4 file (754.4 MB) from the archive.org link without the 25 second black background at the beginning and the "edition credits" at the end. The archive.org from which the video is sourced also contains two video files which seem to have higher quality than the current quality of the upload:

• a 1.3 GB .mkv file which, based from my experiences using archive.org, its the one the website automatically used to directly create the .mp4 file with downscaled quality.
• an uncompressed 30 GB .m2ts file, that was directly extracted from the official Blu-ray.

I suggest using the .mkv file to make a higher quality upload than the one we currently have.--Mayimbú (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Kourion

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 01:18:35 (UTC)

Original – Ancient town of Kourion near Limassol, Cyprus

Reason

Good composition. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Kourion, List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom, Romanization of Anatolia

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 19:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Baker's Falls

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 01:04:01 (UTC)

Original – Baker's Falls in the Horton Plains National Park, Sri Lanka

Reason

Good composition. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Baker's Falls, List of waterfalls of Sri Lanka

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject fully in shadow. —kallerna 08:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, Sri Lanka

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 00:56:38 (UTC)

Original – St. Stephen's Church in Negombo, Sri Lanka

Reason

Good composition and ilustration.

Articles in which this image appears

Saint Stephen's Church, Negombo, List of Archaeological Protected Monuments in Gampaha District

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Perspective looks distorted/exaggerated. – Sca (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  No wonder, with a 13mm lens... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Galle Lighthouse

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 00:48:33 (UTC)

Original – The Galle Lighthouse, Sri Lanka

Reason

High quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Galle Lighthouse

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Perspective looks distorted/exaggerated. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – I agree it looks distorted but it works IMO, good lighting, some history, even a marine radar next to it! Bammesk (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Vysotsky

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2021 at 00:42:54 (UTC)

Original – Vysotsky Tower in Ekaterinburg, Russia

Reason

Good composition. High quality

Articles in which this image appears

Vysotsky (skyscraper)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Perspective looks distorted/exaggerated. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – I am Ok with the perspective, the edges of the building are vertical. The foreground/bottom is a bit too chaotic though. Bammesk (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominations — to be closed

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

These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.

Closing procedure

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.

When promoted, perform the following:

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~

   • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:

   Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Add the image to:
   • Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
   • Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
   • Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.

   The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.

4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the January archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure

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

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

1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

3. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

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

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.

2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.

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

1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:

   {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~

   • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
   • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.

2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.

Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:

1. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
2. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive.
3. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Recently closed nominations

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

Pithecopus rohdei

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 02:16:28 (UTC)

Original – Pithecopus rohdei in Atlantic Forest, Igrapiúna, Brazil

Reason

Interesting photo, Commons picture of the year in 2017. I expanded the article some, hopefully it will get more attention.

Articles in which this image appears

Pithecopus rohdei, Wikimedia Commons

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians

Creator

Renato Augusto Martins

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This image has a 'Photoshopped' background and may have been created using string to hold the frog's leg up in the air. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Are you sure about that? --Janke | Talk 17:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• This was discussed on Commons, the photographer described what he did and it passed unanimously. Charles participated and said "fine work". The background is dark because it was shot at f/22 with a (remote) flash. About "maybe string holding the leg up": I uploaded a frame from this GIF, see top view here. This is a natural pose. The forward elbow has a slight bend which wouldn't show in a lateral view. Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I remember the discussion, though I should not have said fine work. Reading a Google translate of the photographer's comment he admits that it was a complicated set up shot. It is not natural. The photographer's comments explain how it was staged Petar Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well i hope they did not "torture" that animal for a picture. That should be prohibited. I dont understand why f/22 was used, on f/14-16 would be more than enough. Despite that Support, unless some other show up (staged etc.). --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did not know that, despite my support vote there, but i did not read further text. So put one there, and they will fight for place, as someone mentioned. What is bad it become POTY, and even more bad, we had two crippled birds (from London) as POTY too. Those birds were tortured and could not fly. I remove my support vote. --Petar Milošević (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I google-translated the photographers comments: Hello everyone, thank you very much for the messages and doubts. I will try to clarify all the points questioned. Yes, the animal is wild and free-living. The technique used for this type of image with a black background is very simple, however very laborious. As previously mentioned by the colleague, in the EXIF ​​of the photo it is possible to observe the f / 22 which would be quite high! with the foreground well lit and the background in shadow or dark, we managed to make the background very black. Allied to this, we can see in the image that there is practically no shadow in the amphibians, this is the most difficult part of the photograph! There is no information in the EXIF ​​about the light source, as I use an external flash, attached to a flash radio. That alone would be enough for a black background, but to have no shadow in the image I used 3 light beaters, making the light soft and pleasant! The position of amphibians is completely natural in their habitat. Above all the Clado Phyllomedusidae, presents species that walk slowly and jump little, in the photo in question, a male disputes the branch with another male, when passing over him, an amphibian lowers itself as a form of defense as the other crosses, everything this lasted for about 4 seconds, making the image even more challenging! I hope I have helped, I am always available for further clarification. Renato Augusto Martins So this looks and feels genuine to me, and I've seen videos of frogs taking slow steps just like seen here. The link to the "faked frogs" doesn't show natural postures. Just my 2 €-cents... --Janke | Talk 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• The translation says "very laborious". In the wild, no frog is going to hang around while a photographer does everything he says he did! It is a set up shot. 100%. He says so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussion above, and the likely suggestion that this has been staged. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reply – So it's not photoshopped and strung (frogs weren't forced and tortured). Now the oppose rationale is "staged" and "not in the wild". Several things: 1- Using the word "staged" on a frog implies undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). In this photo the frogs are doing what's natural to them. The photographer says so and I think we all agree on that. 2- A remote flash-plus-reflector isn't complicated these days, it could be a bit more elaborate than this. It doesn't mean a complicated setup. 3- The photographer has a track record with frogs-and-flash on flickr in 2010 here, more recently on Commons here. I enlarged his Commons photos and checked the catchlight, he uses flash-plus-reflector on many [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] +more, and flash on almost all photos. I think it's likely his shots are at a research university, animal sanctuary, zoo, etc. (on a sidenote, we don't have a policy or a precedence to oppose solely on that) 4- Yes the photographer says it's "very laborious", and he also says it's "very simple" in the same sentence. As Janke says: these are my 2 €-cents. Bammesk (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

so you agree, staged! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the 39 supports on Commons, which includes you, so I agree with your vote on Commons. Bammesk (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC) . . . . I agree the frogs are doing what's natural to them. I agree there was no undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). He said the frogs are wild and free-living, he didn't say he shot this in the wild. I think he had time, he knows what frogs do, he was hoping he get a good shot and he got it. I think he is legit, he doesn't do fake shots. I think you want to oppose, first fake background, now "staged" as a synonym for fake. By the way "not in the wild" and "staged" are not sufficient oppose rationales, we are an encyclopedia, not a wild life magazine. Example: [6] Bammesk (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The photo has considerable artistic merit. But this is not Commons. You believe an encyclopaedia should celebrate a photo which purports to be natural, but where the frog must have been placed on the branch by the photographer's assistant? I don't agree. I know quite a lot about frogs' behaviour. Do you? I was eventually happy last time as I had not read the English translation of the photographer's explanation of the lengthy set up. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• You actually supported this twice on Commons, once before [7] and then after [8] reading the photographer's explanations. So you think this is a well-done shot: technically, humanely (since you know frogs), compositionally, etc. I don't know frogs but handling this type is easy [9]. They could have been placed on the branch. I am Ok with "well done" set up shots, we are an encyclopedia, and animals aren't an exception. I don't see undue manipulation in capturing this photo, so I am Ok with it. I see the frogs having a natural dispute. I don't see cruelty, given the unanimous supports on Commons including your support there. Bammesk (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Looks artificial, staged, faked. – Sca (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Faked? Frogs do move in funny ways... example: [[10]] --Janke | Talk 19:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I'm inclined to agree with Bammesk. --Muhammad(talk) 06:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Me, too. Frogs move just like that, so the posture is certainly not artificially staged, even though the "complicated" flash setup can be called "staging". I think this discussion went off the rails due to the first oppose (now struck), and is worth reconsidering by opposers. I see no reason this "climbing over" could not happen in the wild, without any interference at all (such as photographer placing frog/frogs on a branch - and we even don't know if that happend). --Janke | Talk 14:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• The flash isn't complicated, his camera and flash have wireless built-in [11] [12]. The frogs are ~1.8 inch [13], image width is ~4 inch, lens is 105mm, so camera is ~1.5 ft away. Looking at the catchlight I am pretty confident it's 3 surfaces, as opposed to 3 reflectors; something like 4.5x1.5 ft in area folded into 3 sections, not as small as I previously thought. According to the file description [14] this was shot at the Michelin Reserve in Brazil, which is a protected nature reserve and research area [15]. Bammesk (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Good photo of frogs in action; I haven't seen any evidence that this is unacceptably staged, and the photographer has explained in some detail how it was taken. TSP (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Ivar (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  All I can say is ribbit. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Storming of the United States Capitol

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 18:27:13 (UTC)

Original – Trump supporters storming the United States capitol

Reason

The picture is some impressive photography that shows off the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Currently in that article's infobox, greatly improving said article.

Articles in which this image appears

2021 storming of the United States Capitol, 117th United States Congress

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Tyler Merbler (on Flickr)

• Support as nominator – Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Dark and fuzzy, doesn't really show any action. --Janke | Talk 18:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – It isn't sharp for a heavily photographed event. Also the primary article is in flux, so the image isn't necessarily stable there (FP criterion 5). Bammesk (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. An important event, certainly one with plenty of encyclopedic value to lend to its images, but I don't think this photo is very informative. The level of quality is unsurprising for impromptu news photography, but an image needs to be sufficiently iconic to rise above that and be featured, and I don't think this one is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yellow-throated miner

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 12:15:26 (UTC)

Original – A yellow-throated miner in Sturt National Park, Australia

Reason

Was seen on Commons FPC last week, where it was featured unanimously.

Articles in which this image appears

Yellow-throated miner

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

JJ Harrison

• Support as nominator – MER-C 12:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Janke | Talk 18:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support--A.889 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I struck this vote, editor has less than 100 edits. (per instructions on top of this page) Bammesk (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I probably would have nominated it eventually. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support —kallerna 18:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Promoted File:Yellow-throated Miner - Sturt National Park.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenerife airport disaster - wreckage

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2021 at 04:57:31 (UTC)

Original – Wreckage of one (KLM) of the two planes involved in the disaster

Reason

This shows the aftermath of the deadliest aviation incident in history, where two Boeing 747s collided in a Spanish airport on March 27, 1977, causing 583 fatalities. Somewhat of a historical value and a detailed image. Could be reasonably restored, if needed.

Articles in which this image appears

Tenerife airport disaster

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Unknown, but was donated to the Dutch National Archives

• Support as nominator – Lemonreader (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – It needs restoration in the sky area. I am not sure about the copyright, source page says copyright holder is unknown, I see no specifics about Creative Commons CC0. Bammesk (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Night in Luna Park, Coney Island (1905)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 17:55:40 (UTC)

Original – Interior of Luna Park at night, 1905 with its centerpiece, the "Electric Tower" in the foreground.

Reason

High quality. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Luna Park (Coney Island, 1903). Coney Island, Frederic Thompson, List of defunct amusement parks in the United States, Night photography

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company

• Support as nominator – TheFreeWorld (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• comment There are white sports in the sky. Given the general exposure I'd be surprised if they were stars.©Geni (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Josh Hawley

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2021 at 22:58:58 (UTC)

Original – Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) in 2018 or 2019

Reason

High-quality, compelling portrait of US senator Josh Hawley, an important figure in American politics right now and likely to come. High EV to Hawley and related articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Josh Hawley, 2018 United States Senate election in Missouri, 2016 Missouri Attorney General election, List of United States senators from Missouri, United States congressional delegations from Missouri, List of new members of the 116th United States Congress, Religious affiliation in the United States Senate

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

Rebecca Hammel, U.S. Senate Photographic Studio

• Support as nominator – AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose another official portrait. --Gnosis (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Now is a very poorly chosen moment to feature a picture of him as composed, official, and patriotic. It sends a message of non-neutrality, regardless of whether such a picture might be appropriate in other circumstances. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Unremarkable official portrait, basically a decent yearbook photo. XOR'easter (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Genuine Q here: how would the majority of FP political portraits not also be considered "yearbook photos?" I'm trying to understand your rationale for opposing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – per all above. Bammesk (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – per all above. --Janke | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per previous. And given the current U.S. political climate, it smacks of hype/POV. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As the nominator, I feel obligated to say this nomination wasn't POV, and I'm not too keen on personal attacks suggesting otherwise. To be frank, I don't like Hawley myself. This merely came about when I was editing the page and remarked to myself "huh, that's a pretty good photo." Nothing more. However, given the wide backlash against this nom, I can see this clearly wasn't the time. I'd suggest potentially reviewing policy to include something about if a subject is controversial or the subject of a current political event, as I could not find anything regarding that myself, and yet the majority of votes have something to do with that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a personal attack – a comment on the import of the photo given the current climate. "Smacks of" doesn't quite mean it's intentionally POV, it means that in the current circumstances it could be interpreted as POV; a connotation rather than a denotation. (Besides, it's a boring official photo.) – Sca (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • If you want a policy to review, I suggest the one I alluded to in my comment above: WP:NPOV. In ordinary times, an anodyne portrait portraying a politician as a normal if boring-looking human person would be neutral enough. These are not normal times, and that portrayal is (one hopes, temporarily) not a neutral one. It is telling the world "we think that this portrayal of Hawley, and not the one of him raising his fist in support of a fascist coup attempt, is how people should be thinking of him right now, and it's so important that you forget that other image that we're going to take the step of promoting the non-fascist image to our front page". Is that really what you think we should be saying? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Let me make my views on the subject clear once again. I do not like Josh Hawley. In fact, I shouldn't need to tell you this, but I in fact voted against him, twice, and in a large sense, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. However, after reviewing other photos that have been passed as FP, I do not believe that this standard you are proposing here has been equally applied at all. There are, right now, profiles of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Andrew Jackson that have all passed FP, all of which depict their respective subjects as sage and statesmanlike. Why can't this same principle be applied to a sitting, democratically elected U.S. senator? Sure, Hawley has a now-infamous (and copyrighted and non-free) image of him raising a fist, but these figures surely have photos of mass graves and other atrocities that would reflect their tenures more accurately, and yet WP has decided to depict them this way in their infoboxes and even the Main Page. Additionally, an image on perhaps the most contentious issue in modern politics, depicting a slogan that would surely make some sensible people's blood boil, was allowed to go on the Main Page as well, because WP editors chose to ambivalently decide FP status based on the quality of an image. All I am asking is for this image to be treated the same. Some editors have done this, and I applaud them (though I would like more clarification on XOR'easter's "yearbook photo" comment, out of genuine curiosity). However, what many of you have shown me is that a fair, unbiased assessment of whether or not this image is of FP quality is not possible at this time, and as such I am calling on Armbrust to speedily close this nomination as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Orson Welles post-The War of the Worlds broadcast

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 05:45:07 (UTC)

Original – Orson Welles meeting with reporters in an effort to explain that no one connected with the War of the Worlds radio broadcast had any idea the show would cause panic.

Reason

The image itself is of high-quality and gives context and EV for how much mass hysteria the broadcast of War of the Worlds caused, to the point Welles had to be interviewed to clarify the intent of the program. Part of an otherwise historical moment in radio.

Articles in which this image appears

Orson Welles, The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama), Mercury Theatre, 1938 in science fiction

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment (maybe)

Creator

Acme News Photos

• Support as nominator – GamerPro64 05:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Documents a momentous, historical occasion. --Janke | Talk 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Cluttered to say the least. – Sca (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't that perfectly convey the situation? According to the article, Welles was overrun by reporters... --Janke | Talk 11:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. MER-C 12:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- mcshadypl ^TC 06:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support--Petar Milošević (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Promoted File:Orson Welles War of the Worlds 1938.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2021 at 04:48:26 (UTC)

Original – A nine-car Bay Area Rapid Transit train made of four C-type cars and five B-type cars. The B cars have identical windows at both ends and are strictly passenger cars. The C cars have an operator cab at one end, with narrower window, and can be used as an end car (i.e. control car).

Reason

Detailed image of a Bay Area Rapid Transit train. The image is captured with a line scan camera. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Bay Area Rapid Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit rolling stock

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land

Creator

Dllu

• Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Interesting method of photography. Could be added to Strip photography article. --Janke | Talk 11:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support as creator. Thanks for the nomination! dllu (t,c) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Andrei (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. MER-C 11:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support--A.889 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I struck this vote, editor has less than 100 edits. (per instructions on top of this page) Bammesk (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Promoted File:Line scan photo of nine car BART C1 train in 2017.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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