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 portals 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

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 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
	Supir Istimewa
	McEwen Bridge
	William Grant Still

Current nominations

Vivian Malone

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2016 at 12:12:53 (UTC)

Original – Vivian Malone moves to enroll at the University of Alabama at the end of the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door

Reason

While one might ask for better composition, as a document of a unique historical event, methinks this image passes the requirements.

Articles in which this image appears

In no particular order: Foster Auditorium, History of the University of Alabama, Racism, Stand in the Schoolhouse Door, Vivian Malone Jones

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Warren K. Leffler, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support important piece of Black history. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – A historic moment, certainly, but I'd rather see a shot showing at least some of Ms. Malone's face. And contrast issues here lessen EV. Sca (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sca: Even if that was free-licensed, it wouldn't illustrate the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issue is understood, of course. I'm not saying the pic shouldn't be used at all, just that it doesn't seem quite up to FP/Main Page standards of clarity and EV.

Re "the stand," I don't see George Corley Wallace here. Sca (talk)

PS: I didn't know that Ms. Malone (Mrs. Jones) was Eric Holder's sister-in-law. Sca (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

PPS: – Look at the size of the tape recorder used by the (radio?) guy, far right! Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a Swiss Nagra, the best tape recorder in the world at that time... --Janke | Talk 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wallace is just left of Katzenbach, I believe, partially hidden by Katzenbach's left shoulder. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know absolutely, of course, but I don't think so. I remember Wallace quite well from the Civil Rights era (and the 1968 election), and back then he always wore his hair drenched in Vitalis or some such and slicked back, 1950s U.S. style. This guy's hair is shorter, combed differently and not greasy. Sca (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sca, issue with the suggested image (aside from copyright) is the fact that she's clearly leaving the building. The image would have much lower EV at Stand in the Schoolhouse Door (which is where this image has the most EV). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Chris, agreed. I wasn't proposing the referenced image even as a type of alternative, just linking it as an example of a photo showing her face. Sca (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's not a perfect photo, but we generally make reasonable exceptions in the face of historically important photographs, and I think this one has reasonable cause for consideration under those exceptions. It gives a feel of the event very well, even the flaws arguably highlight the chaotic nature of it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

To my mind that's a fine argument for using it at Stand in the Schoolhouse Door. But to each his own – let the chips fall.... Sca (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Awkward composition, main persons either not in picture or shown almost from the back. With all those photographers there, there surely are better photos of this incident? --Janke | Talk 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – It shows a historic moment well. This has all the elements: the door she was forbidden to enter, law officer, deputy attorney general, the escort, the media. The significance of the moment is in the story, not the individuals or her face, this image tells the story well. (Wallace had left and wasn't around for this shot [1]) Bammesk (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I hear the objections, but think the array of press is rather interesting in contrast to Malone's obscured face. A civil rights pioneer, yes, but she was also a symbol. The photograph both returns her to anonymity while instructing us that the historic struggle was bigger than hers alone. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Gioachino Rossini

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2016 at 16:10:48 (UTC)

Original – Gioachino Rossini photographed in 1865 by Étienne Carjat

Reason

Do I need to defend this one?

Articles in which this image appears

Gioachino Rossini + lots

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Étienne Carjat, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – EV for history of Western (in more ways than one) music. Sca (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Good scan, good EV. --Janke | Talk 14:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

View from Stalheim

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 15:59:14 (UTC)

Original – a caption for the image, providing adequate context for voters on WP:FPC

Reason

View from Stalheim (Fra Stalheim) by Norwegian painter Johan Christian Claussen Dahl, oil on canvas, 1842. As Yngvadottir wrote=" It is a major work of Romantic nationalism and has become a national icon. It is regarded as one of Dahl's best works.

Articles in which this image appears

View from Stalheim, own article

FP category for this image

Paintings

Creator

Johan Christian Claussen Dahl , uploader, Godot.

• Support as co-nominator – Yngvadottir
• Support as co-nominator – Godot13 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Hafspajen (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Yann (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – De728631 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Cuz according to my Dad, the Norwegians are the finest people in the world. Sca (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Commodore PET

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 16:01:13 (UTC)

Original – A Commodore PET 2001 personal computer

Reason

I find it to be a well shot image of the computer to become a Featured Picture.

Articles in which this image appears

Commodore PET, MOS Technology 6502, Satoru Iwata

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics

Creator

Rama & Musée Bolo

• Support as nominator – GamerPro64 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Appears to have been shot through the glass without an appropriate filter. Evan's work shows us that much better results are possible if we just work a bit harder. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree. Obviously it's pretty hard to get a really good shot through glass and this one is definitely useful, but as a product shot, it falls a bit short. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Four Evangelists, Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 20:38:15 (UTC)

• 

  Saint Matthew

• 

  Saint Mark

• 

  Saint Luke

• 

  Saint John

Reason

high quality images of a set

Articles in which this image appears

Four Evangelists

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Jean Bourdichon (1457–1521)

• Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - Technical quality just beats out the fact that these are used only in a gallery for me. If we had an article on this set, it'd have my full support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We have an article on Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany, and on of them (Matthew) is included there. Yann (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Again, if we had an article on this set (implying that all of them are used), you'd have my full support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

William Grant Still

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2016 at 18:22:25 (UTC)

Original – William Grant Still as photographed by Carl Van Vechten in 1949.

Reason

A fine photograph, by a notable photographer, of an important African-American classical composer

Articles in which this image appears

William Grant Still+8

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Carl Van Vechten, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I prefer the original monochrome version. It doesn't look odd to me and it seems like it is a matter of personal preference where the original should be favoured per WP:VERIFY - Wolftick (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The original is a very light scan from a source (the LoC) known to have poor colour fidelity and contrast. Further, it's a monochrome file, meaning that the subtle shades even black and white film has are lost. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I am not opposed to sympathetic restoration of source where it is clearly lacking, but I cannot support going from this: [2] to this: [3]. That is just adding yellow to a perfectly acceptable greyscale image that is most likely and to the extent that it can be verified a fairly accurate depiction of the original. - Wolftick (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Every roughly 1950s-era photo I've looked at in full colour has had a warm colour balance. Compare: File:Carl Van Vechten - William Faulkner - Original.tif, File:Red_Skelton_1960_-_original_scan.tiff, for instance. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • That may be, but unless you have a verifiable source in this specific case the monochrome version should be favoured per WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.". The LoC would generally be considered a reliable source - Wolftick (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
          • • The file is explicitly a monochrome file. It ain't a source for nothin' colour-balance-wise; It literally can't be. The information's been stripped. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Again, this may be true, but I don't think this means you can just add it back in without any additional source. - Wolftick (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
              • ...Show me one non-monochrome file of Van Vechten's that isn't slightly yellow, and you have a point. Otherwise, you're basically stating this should be considered an exception. Here's the complete set! [4] Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                • My point is not that you are incorrect. My point is that you do not have a source for the changes specific to this image other than your own understanding of what the image should look like according to other, different images. My reading is that adding colour where there is none is different to "colour/exposure correction" per WP:FP? #8 and so this falls foul of WP:V and WP:OR irrespective. - Wolftick (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • ...I think... that's... I don't even know what to say to that. I can't follow your logic here, where you seem to think that an image known to have no information as to warmness or coolness of the greys - it was reduced to greyscale after all, which cannot store tone, greyscale has no information but lightness and darkness of each pixel, there's no tone information - is more correct of a guide than images that actually contain the information, by the same photographer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • It's fairly simple. I'm saying there is no suitable guide that doesn't require original research and lack verifiability. The original, while lacking colour information, is at least from a reliable source - Wolftick (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • So... you're saying almost certainly wrong is preferable to... never mind, I'm done here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                        • It is not unthinkable for what we'd consider to be "reliable" sources to be wrong. Both scans of Tobias and the Angel are unaltered from the National Gallery of Art (albeit each scan is from a different part of their website), and that's at a stalemate now: we know that one of the two is more accurate than the other, but we don't know which. Then there's the Yorck project scans, which were originally taken at face value as reliable but are now so infamously inaccurate that they have been widely replaced. If sources are known to have issues, even if they are ostensibly accurate in some cases, we have the right to exercise editorial discretion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
                          • Using editorial discretion to weight conflicting sources per Tobias and the Angel is very much part of Wikipedia's core content policy. However the source image in question is not "wrong". It is instead lacking information, namely colour. As far as I know there is no additional colour source for this image, so any addition of colour is against WP:VERIFY: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

...However, I've since looked at WP:GL/PHOTO... and, well, I'm out. - Wolftick (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Yann (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Surprised that Vechten chose such a close crop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lewis Powell, conspirator

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 22:49:24 (UTC)

Original – Lewis T. Powell, photographed by Alexander Gardner on the deck of the USS Saugus in 1865, shortly before his trial and execution on conspiracy charges.

Alt

Reason

Powell was executed for his attempted assassination of William Henry Seward on the night of Lincoln's assassination. Famously photographed by Alexander Gardner while awaiting trial, the 21-year-old is best remembered for his serene calm and matinée idol good looks (the most familiar image of the series has him staring directly at the camera). From a technical standpoint, this is a very clean image given the long exposure time required. Contrary to popular belief, Powell was photographed not in his cell but in full sunlight, on deck of the USS Saugus.

Articles in which this image appears

Lewis Powell (conspirator), Alexander Gardner (photographer)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Alexander Gardner, 27 April 1865

• Support as nominator – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• If the one with him facing the camera, why not use that one? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Because 1) Wikipedia does not have a qualifying FP high resolution version of it, and 2) it's not as well-focused or composed, with Powell's hands and head moving slightly during the exposure. Both versions were widely circulated and contributed to Powell's notoriety after his death. There are several more in the Gardner series, including Powell dressed in the clothes and hat he wore when attacking Seward. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm still holding out for the more famous one. Though it may not technically be as nice, it will most certainly have the greater EV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• If a 20.2mb or 86.6mb TIFF file of that more famous portrait can be converted and uploaded to Wikipedia, it's available from the Library of Congress. I'm not technically able to do that from my computer, but would happily support that if it were nominated instead—would the damage to the glass plate disqualify it, or would EV value transcend the problem? (Also, he did move slightly during the exposure.) There's a brief, incomplete discussion of the series here; it is interesting that Alexander Gardner took more time and effort creating Powell's portrait than those of the other conspirators. By the way, Roland Barthes included the more famous Powell portrait in Camera Lucida, with the caption "he is dead and he is going to die". I would love that at least one of Gardner's portraits of Powell achieve FP. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand why one might prefer the less famous profile shot. I think I might actually agree aesthetically. However, I do think the greater EV of the more famous portrait probably trumps it from a FP pov. I've converted, uploaded and added as alt the equivalent library of congress version for consideration (@ User:Crisco 1492, User:Vesuvius Dogg ) - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Wolftick and Crisco 1492. We'll see where the debate takes us. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Re: damage: Restoration would definitely be necessary (for both the profile and the face-on shot). The face-on shot would need a bit more work, but it is doable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – The image can use a restoration, it has lots of spots. I can clean it up but not soon. If it isn't restored by Adam or others, I will clean it up on January 16/17. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate that! Thank you. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Though whether it'll matter we'll have to see - January is a dead period on Wikipedia, so if it fails to get a quorum now, don't be disheartened, just wait a month and renominate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dang, at first I thought it was a photo of Charlie Sheen... ;-) Abstain from voting for the time being. --Janke | Talk 14:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – Are we moving toward consensus that the more famous Alt image (above) should be considered for FP, if it can be successfully restored? It's a big ask but the effort would be appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am Ok with either image. But I prefer both as a set, like a mug shot nomination (actually the mug shot article mentions Gardner!). I can restore the profile image, unless Adam wants to do it. Bammesk (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Go ahead, if ye would. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

McEwen Bridge

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 19:29:44 (UTC)

Original – McEwen Bridge in October 2015.

ALT – Straightened

Reason

High technical quality and excellent EV for the location.

Articles in which this image appears

McEwen Bridge

FP category for this image

Places/Others

Creator

Óðinn

• Support as nominator – Óðinn (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support either Could be a little better centred, but it looks fantastic otherwise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Agree, off center (not too fatal a flaw) and seems to be distorted somewhat (fixable). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ALT - Looks nice once the distortion is removed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. --Explorer999 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Striked !vote as Explorer999 doesn't has the necessary number of edits and account age to !vote. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Support ALT Looks a bit overexposed at full zoom - the branches appear almost bright white. But overall the picture works, and looks lovely. Preference of ALT due to successful improvement with the corrections... gazhiley 09:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the subject and the composition, but the biggest fault I can see is that it's way oversharpened. It hurts my eyes to view full size. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral I find myself very much agreeing with Diliff. At full res it's pretty bad. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jacques Offenbach

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 16:19:30 (UTC)

Original – Jacques Offenbach c. 1860s, in a photograph by noted French photographer Nadar

Reason

This is slightly undersized (1,433 × 2,200 pixels, as cropped), but the original image is 6 cm wide, and I think that includes the paper backing, so - depending on that - this represents a resolution of between about 600dpi and 950dpi, which seems quite reasonable. The picture is high quality, indeed, arguably it's the iconic photo of Offenbach.

Articles in which this image appears

Jacques Offenbach + LOTS.

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Nadar (a.k.a. Gaspard-Félix Tournachon), restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Great work.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – A face of character – and attire of character, too. Decent quality for an 1860s pic. Interesting life story. Gorgeous music. Sca (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – slightly undersized (but Can-Can do). Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll second that. Sca (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Yann (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Supir Istimewa

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 09:13:55 (UTC)

Original – Film flyer for Supir Istimewa, a 1954 Persari production which follows a man who passes as a chauffeur so he can win the love of a young village woman

Reason

High quality scan of a flyer for a notable film. Fortunately this one was in pretty good shape when I bought it.

Articles in which this image appears

Supir Istimewa

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Persari; restoration by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lacks the "wow" factor I expect in a good movie poster. Scan is technically good, but the photos and presentation not on par with the previous posters. --Janke | Talk 12:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not a poster. It's a flyer, made to distribute quickly and cheaply. As for "wow"... the differences between Commons' and En-Wiki's FP processes have been discussed to death. Doubt more discussion would do any good here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, if you allow me to rephrase, I'd say that IMO, it's not up to En-Wiki's FP criteria #3. --Janke | Talk 16:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – high quality, high EV. sst✈ ^(top/_bottom) 14:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, leaning support: There's a lot of dirt spots, particularly the woman on the right has a lot of brown dots and white fibres on her, the man next to her less so but still a few smaller ones. Those seem like they should be cleaned. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Adam Cuerden, done. I'd thought those misprints, but... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • Support, but can you get the rest of the white fibres just right of her chin? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Low quality. Yann (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support I see where the quality of the content is considered quite poor, but the quality of the scan and the EV is quite high, thus my support. Mattximus (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Gounod

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 09:01:31 (UTC)

Original – Charles Gounod in 1890 by Nadar

Reason

One of the best-looking carte de visites I've seen in quite some time. Nadar did an amazing job with the technology of the time at capturing a clear, crisp photo of a very notable composer. Replaced a terrible reproduction of the same image.

Articles in which this image appears

Charles Gounod, Georgina Weldon, List of Romantic-era composers, Nadar (photographer)

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Nadar (a.k.a. Gaspard-Félix Tournachon), restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Beautiful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Per nom – although more contrast with upper BG would enhance photo (but might not be considered Kosher). Sca (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Probably went about as far in that line as we ought. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I've written about Nadar, BTW. Would love it if any of his ballooning pictures were up to FP snuff. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vesuvius Dogg: Funny you should mention that. I was seeing some rather good ones on a skim of Nadar's work at http://gallica.bnf.fr - have a look around his work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Great! – Yann (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Södersjukhuset

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 13:55:01 (UTC)

Original – Södersjukhuset

Reason

High resolution and quality aerial images with high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Södersjukhuset, Health care in Sweden

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

ArildV

• Support as nominator – ArildV (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support --sst✈ 14:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – Article is 120 words. Sca (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it a unwritten rule to have more then 120 words? It's not mentioned in the Featured picture criteria. The hospital is undeniably relevant, one of the one of the largest in Scandinavia and takes care of more than 100,000 patients each year (according to the source in the article). There are also Wikipedia articles in six languages.--ArildV (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused. A lot of featured pictures are only used in stub articles. This does not disqualify them from being promoted to FP status. It just means that they may not be eligible for appearance on the main page as POTD. sst✈ 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I understand. I added the images to Healthcare in Sweden (because it is one of the largest hospital in Sweden, I think it is a relevant and adequate illustration).--ArildV (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Just on a simple point of accurately depicting the subject, the evening sun makes the buildings look yellow, when they are in fact pure white - Wolftick (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Don't mind the golden hour shot, and though this shot looks messy because of the other buildings included, I can't imagine another way to show the whole hospital. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – While it's not bad as an aerial view of a cityscape, the jumbled and cluttery nature of the subject and its context reduces illustrative value, IMO. (Perhaps it could be cropped a bit?) Sca (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Sca in so much as I have no idea what buildings are part of the hospital, other than of course the main stretch in the picture. However it is a nice picture so stil weak support. gazhiley 09:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a problem that which buildings are hospital isn't defined for readers. Sca (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is a busy picture. Google map [5] and satellite view [6] identify the hospital (basically the bright buildings laid out at 40 degrees). On the left side, the half round/cylindrical building is not part of the hospital nor anything on its left. In the background, the high-rise building and anything behind it and around it is not part of the hospital either. I think a little bit of cropping will be an improvement. Bammesk (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbaeen procession 2015

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2016 at 06:49:48 (UTC)

Original – A man holding a plate full of dates on his head waiting for passing arbaeen pilgrims have them.

Reason

It is a high resolution Pic which is reflecting how passionately the man is waiting for the passing pilgrims take dates from his plate.

Articles in which this image appears

Arba'een Pilgrimage (It's used in the Arabic article, too.)

FP category for this image

Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle

Creator

Mhhossein

• Support as nominator – Mhhossein (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Substandard detail due to shallow DOF. No faces to show "passion" cited above. Sca (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sca. Low technical quality. sst✈ 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There are no faces in the picture to show the aforementioned "passion". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, per above... Nothing about this picture screams "Passion", and could be anywhere in the world at any time - nothing to show this is actually an Arbaeen procession... gazhiley 10:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

gazhiley: Such scenes are seen only during Arbaeen procession. Btw, that the man is sitting on the way of pilgrims clearly shows his passion. Mhhossein (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified groups of people walking along a road, while a street vendor offers wares? No, I would say scenes like that happen all over the world sorry Mhhossein... gazhiley 16:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Only in Arbaeen procession you'll see a man sitting on the ground holding a plate of dates on his head. his is not a vendor, no vendor puts his goods on his head! This act is done just to respect the pilgrims. Please read this text. Tnx --Mhhossein (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein I did not know that they had arbaeen in Ghana lol. For if this style of vendor is exclusive to arbaeen the picture I linked must be from arbaenn. btw the ghana girl is carrying fruit in four badass tiers like a boss. she beats the puny date guy by a mile . FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Mhhossein it just looks like a guy sitting down selling food. There is nothing in the picture to show he is providing them free, and I'm sure somewhere in the world someone has placed a plate on their head other than just here. Either way there is still nothing to indicate that he is "passionately" sitting down. gazhiley 17:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

gazhiley Yes you are right there's no evidence to show the food is free. I'll write more about it on your talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

X

X

Camille Saint-Saëns by Pierre Petit

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 15:13:42 (UTC)

Original – Camille Saint-Saëns in 1900 by Pierre Petit

Reason

Been searching for a good image of Saint-Saëns for years.

Articles in which this image appears

Camille Saint-Saëns +1

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Pierre Petit, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – Nice example of fin de siècle gravitas. However, pic added only yesterday (Criterion 5). Sca (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sca: That's just a suggestion (criterion just says " It is preferable"), meant to avoid edit warring images in. When you work with the person who got the article to FA to select the image it's not such an issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – OK Adam, I'll buy that. Sca (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood sign

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2016 at 02:13:45 (UTC)

Original – Hollywood Sign in Los Angeles, California

ALT: Cropped

Reason

Excellent quality and great EV for the section 'Location'

Articles in which this image appears

Hollywood sign, Hollywood, Jagged Little Pill

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Der Wolf im Wald

• Support as nominator – Nikhil (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Not a scratch on the Vinewood sign, but it'll do... gazhiley 10:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Confirm my support is for Orig As I like the framing of the Tower etc being included. More realistic of it's setting as it explains the fencing and objects on the peak of the hill behind the sign that seem to be just randomly there in the ALT. gazhiley 10:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but Prefer ALT - 79 single images? Daaaaaaaaaaamn. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I too would like to have ALT featured, but original is a tad better IMHO. In fact, I compared both before nominating and I have opted for the original. I think the picture may have been wrongly placed in the article, but the section 'Location' describes the background of the Sign, like the tower and those antennas. So I think I prefer original. Nikhil (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Lower left has a relatively large fuzzy (out of focus) area. That's strange for 79 images. What is that? Bammesk (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• It would be understandable with a single exposure (I suspect that bluff is a fair bit closer than the rest of the scene) but I'd agree it's a bit odd when everything else is very sharp indeed. Amazing photo though. Prefer alt: crop compositionally but original has greater EV. - Wolftick (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hello and thanks Nikhil for the nominatiuon! :-) The unsharp area on the left is out of focus because of the depth of field. I focused on the sign and took every image with this adjustment. So the result is like a one-shot with extreme aperture. I think the result appears more natural if you use the same focus setting in each of the 79 single images. The unsharp foreground is OK for me, because through that you get a depth effect and nothing important gets lost. Regards, Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support ALT and Weak support original – per above. Bammesk (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ALT - The crop also got rid of power lines at lower right. --Janke | Talk 20:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support prefer "original", but the ALT is also OK for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Harsh colouring, and artificial appearance perhaps because it is stitched from many different images? I don't see the point of the crop which still includes acres of bushes. Between the two images, the original has the advantage of showing some context and also the same view as the 1970's one in the article. ProfDEH (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Yann (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. No preference on which one.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ALT I think it's the case where cropping doesn't hurt. Brandmeister^talk 12:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Jules Massenet

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2016 at 13:59:18 (UTC)

Original – Jules Massenet by the first video pornographer Eugène Pirou. The article on Pirou focuses so heavily on his pornography that I didn't dare add the photo to his page.

Reason

By far the best of the images I can find for Massenet. Delicate photography combined with a natural pose; everything else was either really odd photographic artefacts, or weird poses. Major composer, certainly deserves our attention. (Also, any crop desired can be done with {{CSS image crop}}, if the carte de visite mount is not desirable for some use.)

Articles in which this image appears

Jules Massenet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Pornographer Eugène Pirou, restored by Adam Cuerden.

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I thought it was perhaps a pixel or two wonky, but after checking properly it wasn't. My eyes must just be playing tricks on me! Miyagawa (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Miyagawa: I think the different parts aren't perfectly aligned. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, fair enough then. Miyagawa (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. It's really quite a nice photograph for the age.... Mattximus (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – for article use, I think this edit [7] is easier on the eyes. Bammesk (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't want to go too far and make the photograph look like a different type of photo, though. I mean, all the details are visible in both, it's just darkness of moustache. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my !vote on Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2016 (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.

Tobias and the Angel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2015 at 13:18:36 (UTC)

Original – Tobias and the Angel are out walking with a fish. And a dog - Why? Read article.

ALT - High resolution NGA scan from source

Detail Comparison - Original Left, Alt right

Reason

Good scan, interesting theme. The painting is by the Italian Renaissance painter Filippino Lippi, depicting Tobias and the Angel, rom c. 1475-1480. The painting is in the the National Gallery of Art of Washington, DC, where Crisco took it to give everybody a nice Christmas mood, angels and happy end and all that...

Articles in which this image appears

Tobias and the Angel (Filippino Lippi) (own article), Tobias and the Angel, List of painters and architects of Venice

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Filippino Lippi

• Support as co-nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - sst✈^(discuss) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support – Yann (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support – Jobas (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Atsme^📞📧 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I support the second imageCharlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment While it looks perfectly fine, I note that file is less than half the size of the download of the same resolution in the stated source [8]. This suggests re-compression and, while subtle, I think the current version is inferior to the source version because of it. Also it appears the zoomable image viewer version in source is of significantly greater resolution and detail than either [9]. – Wolftick (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have stitched together a substantially higher resolution and more detailed version from the image viewer on source. I'm fairly new to this: Assuming this is okay, should I upload as a new version of the file or post it as an alt? Wolftick (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the caution- I'm sure we all appreciate it! It would be valuable if you could post this as an alt so that the alternatives can be compared side-by-side. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Alt uploaded and posted - Wolftick (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Wolfie. Wonder though, if the original doesn't got the right colors, though. The work is rather tiny, it is 33 × 23 cm (13 × 9.1 in) - so the resolution of the original scan might be just enough...‎(2,123 × 3,000 pixels, file size: 4.04 MB) -- [thinking about and because of the colour question]... Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• People have a tendency to just crank up the saturation and contrast on artworks, reality be damned. We know this, although given Crisco's the one uploading, perhaps they just restored it recently by removing a varnish layer. In any case, we should go with the more recent scan by the gallery. Oppose original. Will need to check the alt over for stitching errors. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - One can't do this kind of changes by removing the varnish. And all scans are not good. Hafspajen (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's impossible to tell for sure without seeing in person but alt feels right to me, in the same way original felt wrong. I think the yellows are the main tell-tale.

With regards to resolution, as long as it reveals more detail my inclination is to go with as much as available in preference to minimising file size. Not sure if people follow? In this case alt is approximately 600PPI which doesn't feel over the top for this work.

The stitching was a simple case of manually aligning per pixel 3 parts split vertically (top, middle and bottom sections), but I would agree that checking would be good in case I made any errors. - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version). I'm currently uploading the newest downloadable version they have. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An interesting rendition of wings and a halo.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Either image is acceptable in my opinion. Editors have this problem all the time selecting images. So long as the images are technically proficient and not gratuitously processed to the uploader's taste or prejudices, there shouldn't be a problem. There was a problem with the accompanying article however, which was a blatant copyright violation of NGA text. That material needs to be rewritten by our esteemed commentators here. 64.9.157.242 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I could support either version, too. The question is which one comes closer to the original painting. Can this be decided? --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment support either, however if I were to use one in an article, I would use the 1st. Atsme^📞📧 13:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Support either per Tremonist.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Confirming my vote above: I think ALT is better. Yann (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Prefer original - It doesn't have any stitching errors, and since the museum is releasing it for download, it's probably reasonably accurate.. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I understand if the original is preferred but unless examples can be cited I would assert that there are no stitching errors with the second image. While it was stitched together this was achieved using only 3 overlapping parts of the original whole and thus could be performed manually with per pixel accuracy. - Wolftick (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, left out the word "possible". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• 'Support original - For all the NGA scans here and there - Renaissance paintings and especially Filippino Lippi - ALL of his paintings have CLEAR; LUMINOUS colours. Original is most probably right. Hafspajen (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I would contend that while less sharp and contrasty in thumbnail the colours in alt are clearer and more luminous in alt. Note in comparison the rosey cheeks and distinction in colour between the face and hair that are present in alt but sadly absent in the original, along with the blue sky that is actually blue rather than grey, the richer green... I could go on. - Wolftick (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Hafspajen and Crisco 1492: The ALT appears to be the scan from the NGA. Where has the original come from? You're stating it's accurate because the original is the one the museum released; that doesn't appear to be true. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The NGA has both scans available. The one available for download (i.e. the one here) is the one used in the Original above. I've stated this already, above ("I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version).") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That is just weird. I think, then, we can probably make this supposition: The image has been restored, and the original is before the removal of yellowed varnish? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Quite possible. Or there was a different white balance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
        • If it's simply different white balance, I'd say the original is clearly wrong. It has an oversaturated, overcontrasted effect similar to hitting the "Autolevels" button. That's only acceptable if it reflects reality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
          • @Crisco 1492: Actually, there's a point. You have photoshop, right? Do an autolevels on the alt, and tell me if it comes out like the original? If its basically a bad automated adjustment, we should reject it, and some futzing with autolevels and contrast in GIMP hints it may just be that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Auto tone ends up really blue, actually. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
              • Okay, so both are still in the running. That's good to know, at least. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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. 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 January 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:
   • 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}}.
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 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.
11. 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. 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

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.

Fear and Desire

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2016 at 02:24:17 (UTC)

Play media

Original – Fear and Desire (1953) is the first feature film directed by Stanley Kubrick. He hated this anti-war film with a vengeance and tried to have all copies destroyed, but it has survived and is in the public domain because the copyright wasn't extended.

Reason

Notable work by a very notable director.

Articles in which this image appears

Fear and Desire, Stanley Kubrick

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Stanley Kubrick

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Question - Great EV, but I'm wondering if this is the highest quality available digital version of the film? It appears to be 480p, which is quite low. Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The source is at 720p wide, but my conversion program (source downloads as FLV; we only support webm and another rare open format) doesn't have a 720p output at the proper ratio. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Downloading the 720p version from source and converting to webM should be fairly easy for me. Uploading such a large file might be tricky though (wikipedia upload limitations mainly). The actual highest quality available digital version would be sourced from the 1080p blu-ray release though. As I said in this nomination, I do think it's a shame that moving images are seemingly not held to the same standards regarding digitisation when it comes to FPC that still images are. - Wolftick (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Using the upload wizard and uploading a new file, or installing the script I used and uploading with that, will allow a maximum upload size of 1gb.
      • As for the quality concerns: you're not going to have the same standards for a long time. One, getting video is still relatively uncommon, and hence why there has been no standardization even among video files themselves. Then there's the fact that we are limited to a maximum upload size of 1gb: you can't upload a film of an hour's length at 4k with such limitations, for instance, but a 4k still image is a cakewalk. Furthermore, nobody on-wiki seems to actually restore films; we have a plethora of skilled still image editors, and thus the bar is set quite high for those, but nobody does films that I know of. For historic videos like these, that can be troublesome, but standards won't increase until we have an increase in the average quality of video nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
        • My concerns are not with general video quality standards or standardisation. They are specifically with videos nominated for FP that have clear technical deficiencies (visible compression, low resolution) where a substantially higher quality version is relatively easily and freely available. They may be of high EV but I feel they should probably fail on WP:WIAFP .1 and .2 if the criteria is applied in a similar way it is to still images. - Wolftick (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I know your concerns are with FP videos. I already explains three reasons for such issues: 1) our required format (the AVI I got was nice and sharp, but we're not allowed to have AVI), 2) the upload cap, and 3) the fact that nobody is restoring historical video. Bars cannot be set higher until the current bars are being crossed regularly; videos are so rarely nominated here that that doesn't happen for them. There's a reason it's so much harder to successfully nominate an image of a bird then an image of, say, a 1950s athlete. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Can't we get around the upload cap by simply uploading "part 1" and "part 2"? If the standards or upload size for wikipedia changes in the future we can just stitch them back together? Mattximus (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
            • I'd worry that that has less functional value, as it forces readers to open two different files to view the film. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral because of the low resolution. Does anybody have a program that will output 720p webm? WiiWillieWiki 00:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I do and would do so and upload, however I am a little concerned regarding the copyright status of the restored release in the UK. Happy to describe the free (as in beer) software required and process for downloading and transcoding to anyone though. - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I can upload a high resolution version, but seeing the size, it will take some time (769 MB in MP4 in 720p): File:Fear and Desire (1953).webm. Yann (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Fiancee of Belus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 12:17:43 (UTC)

Original – The Fiancee of Belus is a painting by French artist Henri-Paul Motte based on a fanciful Babylonian ritual associated with deity Belus (Bel). According to that ritual, Bel was offered a girl who sat on the lap of the Bel's statue overnight, and then was replaced by another, all of whom were the winners of daily beauty contests.

Reason

While the Musée d'Orsay website has only a small version, the painting was digitized in high-res before the acquisition by its current owner.

Articles in which this image appears

The Fiancee of Belus

FP category for this image

Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Henri-Paul Motte

• Support as nominator – Brandmeister^talk 12:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – sufficient resolution, and has its own article. sst✈ 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support —  Here, the exposure appears to be on the button, both shadows and highlights come out beautifully. --Janke | Talk 16:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. the resolution and exposure are spot on here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Yann (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoted File:Henri Motte - La fiancée de Bélus (1885).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A Wee "Scrap of Paper" is Britain's Bond

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 05:23:01 (UTC)

Original – Lawson Wood's contribution to WWI British recruitment posters targeted the Scots . The caption's reference is to the Germans declaring the Treaty of London (1839), which granted Belgium's neutrality and independence, as a "scrap of paper", then violating the treaty they signed and invading.

Reason

We lacked a Scottish recruitment poster for WWI. Now we have it, and it's a fine illustration. I suspect the cartoon was borrowed for the poster, given that, unusually, the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee very carefully notes Wood as the copyright holder, hence why it's not uploaded as Crown Copyright on commons.

Articles in which this image appears

History of the United Kingdom during World War I, Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War, Treaty of London (1839), Lawson Wood (Admittedly, all just added, but I doubt they'll be removed.)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/WWI

Creator

Lawson Wood, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Good work — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – on historical EV pertaining to the emotional basis of much wartime propaganda. Sca (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. I might have to get you to take a look at the Football Battalion poster. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Miyagawa: Oh, hey, the NZ library (or was it LoC? I looked through both soon after each other) has a large copy of that one. We don't have articles on a lot of battalions, so I hadn't added it to my list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for sending that link over. Downloading it now. Going to take a look myself since you've inspired me! Miyagawa (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Adam Cuerden Can you be kind enough to explain something to me? Kinda offtopic here I think but somewhat connected as well. The copyright notice on the wikipedia page of this file says that it will copyrighted in the source country till 2028 but the link given on the "source" takes me here, and it is written that there are no copyright restrictions on this poster. Can you explain a bit please? Kinda confused. Feel free to use my talkpage if this appears offtopic here. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @FreeatlastChitchat: Precaution, perhaps in excess: Unlike most Parliamentary Recruiting Committee posters, this poster explicitly gives copyright to someone other than them. As such, Crown Copyright may not apply, possibly due to Lawson Wood's work being pre-published and used with permission - but it may just be the publisher instead showing excessive grabbiness for copyright they didn't actually have. In any case, just enough ambiguity that I'd prefer to be careful. It's definitely and unambiguously out of copyright in America. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the explanation on the file page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoted File:Lawson Wood - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee - Your King & Country Need You.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Gulian Verplanck

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2016 at 01:33:20 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of Gulian Verplanck, a colonial American speaker and politician

Reason

High quality portrait of a notable individual

Articles in which this image appears

Gulian Verplanck (speaker)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political

Creator

John Singleton Copley

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Yann (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 10:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like a clean and high quality reproduction. The article is a bit sparse though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies Chris, I had typed that vote yesterday and forgot to hit save, then when I did, I realised it had expired. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Riding mower

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 21:44:33 (UTC)

Original – A riding mower is a type of lawn mower. This photo was taken at Belvedere on the Pfingstberg palace in Germany.

Reason

Lead image in the stub article riding mower which I just created, and moderate EV in the article lawn mower. Large size at 6,020 × 4,016 pixels, and nice overhead angle, contribute to the value of the image.

Articles in which this image appears

Riding mower, Lawn mower

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery

Creator

Pine

• Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 21:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While the size is good, the graininess and blur on the vehicle itself, especially the wheels, is not good... gazhiley 10:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Although it's a large file, detail at full res is, as gazhiley notes, rather poor – due apparently to the camera's distance from the subject and the inclusion of wide lawn context. Further, the composition – overhead view of a faceless guy on a mower – lacks visual interest, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Smoke of a .45

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 18:04:16 (UTC)

Original – Smoke of a .45 by Charles Marion Russell a Google Art Project scan.

Reason

It is not dark, (!), it is a reasonable good scan and made by Charles Marion Russell, oil on canvas, 1908 - who was a rather fascinating painter. No FPs yet by Charles Marion Russell. The painting is in the Amon Carter Museum of American Art.

Articles in which this image appears

Charles Marion Russell, Development of Red Dead Redemption, List of paintings by Charles Marion Russell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings or ... Lifestyle?

How about "history"

Creator

Charles Marion Russell, uploader Godot.

• Support as co-nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator – Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Knowing CMR as I do, the image looks a wee bit washed-out, as if it had been sitting in the sun. Which, for the original, is entirely possible (CMR had a tendency to trade paintings for services so some of them hung in bars and family homes for decades). His colors are usually a bit more saturated. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Some yes, some no, as far as I noticed, like that Self-portrait with Christmas greeting and studing those files. (There's a whole lot on my page) He has both very colourful paintings and even light watercolor paintings and like this and very fine drawings too. And some in between. He was not an one sided artist. Hafspajen (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • On one hand, I agree with you and support on the grounds that this particular one is not a painting I've seen IRL, so it may well be faded; on the other hand, All the images at that site from Amon Carter museum look a bit washed-out to me. Of the ones in Montana (two museums) I've seen many up close, multiple times (in fact, some of the much-lower quality image on wiki are photos I took of the actual art using a cheap camera and existing light with no tripod... meh); the Christmas greeting, for example, is on very weathered material, time has faded it. You may want to download and compare the PowerPoint of the Russell images at this link, which I think are better-quality scans and more accurately portray his range. The Russell palette is unique; his best work portrays the light of the Montana landscape with considerable accuracy (as those of us who live here know...) some have even dubbed his use of light in his oils as "Charlie Russell light." Montana is a dry state, but it's not a washed-out desert — that's one of the big differences between Russell and the less-talented but better-known Remington (whose work was more typical of the southwest).  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support -  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Yann (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoted File:Charles Marion Russell – Smoke of a .45 – Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Women of Britain Say "Go!" (but maybe vote support here first)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2016 at 14:16:13 (UTC)

Original – Women of Britain Say "Go!", May 1915 British WWI poster

Reason

An image already used in a few articles, illustrates the role women were cast in in the recruiting efforts of WWI in Britain rather well.

Articles in which this image appears

British women's literature of World War I, Recruitment to the British Army during the First World War, Music hall

FP category for this image

WP:Featured pictures/History/WWI

Creator

E. J. Kealey / Parliamentary Recruiting Committee; restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – They might just as well have said, "Go to hell!" – Sca (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Poster was only produced in may 1915. Anyone going as a result would be a little late for the Second Battle of Ypres.©Geni (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But not for the ensuing 3 1/2 years of mutual slaughter. Sca (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – good. sst✈ 07:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my !vote at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – on historical EV pertaining to the emotional basis of much wartime propaganda. Sca (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I could have sworn I supported this already! Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – interesting propaganda. Worth remembering that women couldn't vote and suffrage campaigns were suspended during the War (but continued quietly). Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vesuvius Dogg: I think that's what makes British women's literature of World War I so fascinating, really. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoted File:Women of Britain Say - "Go" - World War I British poster by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, art by E J Kealey (Restoration).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Golden Veranda in 2015

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2016 at 05:49:05 (UTC)

Original – The Gold veranda of Imam Ali Mosque

Reason

It has been taken by high technical quality which indicated Golden Veranda of Imam Ali Mosque in 2015

Articles in which this image appears

Imam Ali Mosque

FP category for this image

Places/Others

Creator

Saff V.

• Support as nominator – Lstfllw203 (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but this is too small. See Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose . Can't you upload a bigger picture? Taken from the front? The article definitely needs a better picture in my opinion. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per size issue... gazhiley 09:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – please read the FP criteria. sst✈ 14:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy close, bellow the size requirements. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Blue Kitchen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 01:15:14 (UTC)

Original – The Blue Kitchen, by Neo-Impressionist Norwegian painter Ludvig Karsten

Reason

Excellent example of Ludvig Karsten's work at the height of his career in 1913.

Articles in which this image appears

Ludvig Karsten, The Blue Kitchen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Ludvig Karsten

• Support as nominator – Corinne (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Great scan, but the EV comes from having it's own article The Blue Kitchen, can it be linked? Mattximus (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Intriguing work by a little-known Norwegian artist. And cuz deep greens and blues are the colors I choose. Sca (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Corinne, nice to see you back here. How about following Mattximus's suggestion? Sca (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Well, at the bottom of the image file I saw only two links, the one to my own talk page and the one for the article on the artist. Then, yesterday, when I was discussing a word in the article with the article's creator, Oceanh, s/he mentioned that the image of the painting in the article for the painting, The Blue Kitchen, was a different image, and not as good as the one in the article about the artist. Perhaps the version in the article about the artist (which is above) should be added to the article about the painting. I don't know if I should link the article about the painting here since it shows a different version. Corinne (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I already changed the picture in The Blue Kitchen article to this high-resolution image. The article is about the painting, not a particular picture of the painting. By the way, that other (low-resolution) picture was "featured" in the DYK section in December 2010 with the following blurb: ... that Norwegian neo-impressionist painter Ludvig Karsten is represented at the National Gallery of Norway with several paintings, including The blue Kitchen (pictured) from 1913? Oceanh (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

On my own ... authority? ... I added The Blue Kitchen to Articles in which this image appears. Sca (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad the picture was changed in the painting's article, but at the time I nominated the painting, I didn't even know about that article, and it wasn't among the links in the image file. Corinne (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Trams in Poznań

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2016 at 00:38:45 (UTC)

Original – Tram at Podgórna Street in Poznań. Moderus Beta vehicles were first introduced in 2011.

Reason

Very good quality image with excellent EV depicting a typical Poznań city centre street with tram line, showing vehicle, rails and overheads.

Articles in which this image appears

Trams in Poznań

FP category for this image

Vehicles

Creator

Alexander Savin

• Support as nominator – ELEKHH^T 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad angle, showing largely the tram's front. Brandmeister^talk 10:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Must agree with Brandmeister. A more accessible shot would be somewhat closer with more or less a 3/4 view of tramwaj, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As said above, the image illustrates not the tram vehicle alone, but how a street with tramway looks, with the lower half of the image showing the tracks, while the upper part showing the overheads. There is a certain tendency at FPC to demand images to be cropped and exclude context. But tramways are urban infrastructure that is integrated with street design. The EV of this image is that it shows a typical street cross-section with tram infrastructure. It doesn't illustrate an article about the tram vehicle, it illustrates an article about the entire tramway system of a city. Perhaps should have named the nomination differently, but the 'reason' section above makes this point, even though succinctly. --ELEKHH^T 22:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

One wouldn't have to crop it real tight – one still could include some context of tracks, catenary, streetscape – but a different angle is needed to show the tram itself. (It would be cool, but difficult, to capture some blue electrical flash between the pantograph and catenary.) Sca (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I do think this angle would work if it weren't absolutely centered, though. Pteronura brasiliensis 17:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Good EV but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The same exact picture, but 10 metres to the right on the otherside of the tracks at the bottom right of this picture would make this FP worthy, as it would have a side on view of the tram... gazhiley 10:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lagu Kenangan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 23:48:22 (UTC)

Original – Flyer for Lagu Kenangan, a 1953 film directed by L. Inata for Djamaluddin Malik's Persari. It follows the domestic troubles of a composer and his wife.

Reason

A high quality scan of a contemporary film flyer, properly licensed and digitally restored

Articles in which this image appears

Lagu Kenangan

FP category for this image

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

Creator

Employee(s) of Persari; restored by  — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Very nice scan, great EV, looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest a little sharpening to the extreme lower left corner of the printed area, which is very slightly blurry. Otherwise excellent, so Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Much better! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as I see no reason not to. sst✈ 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nomination didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A Sunday on La Grande Jatte

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 23:34:46 (UTC)

Original – As our article says: "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte – 1884 (French: Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte – 1884) is one of Georges Seurat's most famous works, and is an example of pointillism."

ALT -Take this as an alt. By the way, this is a png. (2,990 × 2,009 pixels)

ALT " - this is a .jpg - 2,991 × 2,012px

Reason

Scan is 30,000 × 19,970 pixels. Georges Seurat - French post-Impressionist painter's rather famous painting, from 1884. He was a and pointillist - he made his painings with dots. Frame is painted too.

Articles in which this image appears

A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Georges Seurat

• Support as nominator (any) – Hafspajen (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support (wavering) – Support Alt. (jpg) – Early pointilism. (In effect, a sort of precursor of pixels?) Sca (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A little dark at thumbnail, but that's mostly because we're seeing it in contrast with the pure white of the website. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the contrast is a bit off. There's a
  
  photo of the painting in context in the article]], and, although that's hardly a perfect representation, since we know it's in a white frame, we can reasonably say that the bright spots of the painting are reasonably bright, and contrast with the dark parts. Here, it looks dull. Seurat isn't dull. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Adam. The dress of the girl in the middle appears to be almost white compared to the frame in the small photo, here it is a dull, 65% grey. Check the histogram - it is quite skewed to the left. Fix the brightness/contrast/gamma, and I'll most certainly support. --Janke | Talk 09:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: On Seurat's page, there's a lighter, but smaller version that has much better colors: --Janke | Talk 10:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wavering – Must agree with Adam and Janke re colors. Interesting that both the nominated image and the brighter one Janke cites are credited to the Art Institute of Chicago. Sca (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

– Switched to supporting Alt. Sca (talk)

• Comment - I'm increasingly inclined to think that the reason these very highly detailed scans are often perceived as dull or lacking contrast is not because they are inaccurate per se. More that the extremely neutral microscopic capture does not reflect well the way the human eye perceives the painting in situ, especially from a more typical viewing distance. I've viewed Suarat very close up before and at a similar scale the brush work and the colour in the Art Project capture feels familiar and right, but then again I'd agree that in overview it feels relatively dull and lifeless. I don't think there is a simple solution to this issue other than to observe that it is probably the case that different types of captures are more suited to different uses and simply reducing the scale of very large detailed scans is often unsatisfactory when an overview is required. - Wolftick (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Yep, Wolfie, I did this on purpose. Wolftick, Sca, Crisco 1492, Janke (I am not pinging Adam since he asked me to stay away from his page) - this situation is exactly the same situation that we have here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Filippino Lippi 016.jpg - same thing, but the reverse in this case. Now is there a way to settle this? When is the big big scan preffered and when the smaller - or anyway ... as User:Wolftick points out here - "these very highly detailed scans are often perceived as dull or lacking contrast. Yes they are. So, what's the solution? Can we discuss this=? Hafspajen (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, when did I say that? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• If not, that's good news. Was kinda missing you. Hafspajen (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• As Yan said, there is a smaller scan,‎(2,990 × 2,009 pixels) that has probably more lighter colours - though this painting is rather big, compared to the angel, that is tiny, this one is 207.5 × 308.1 cm (81.7 × 121.3 in). Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's important to acknowledge that paintings are physical somewhat 3 dimensional subjects and lighting will have a big effect on the look and feel of the image. Therefore the digitisation may be accurate but still not match the look and feel of the painting when seen in person. My personal preference is for detailed, neutral, somewhat analytical images with as much depth of colour as possible as I find this most interesting and objective, even if is does rather sacrifice reproducing the feel of the painting when viewed in overview. I think the latter goal is more subjective and therefore less encyclopaedic. I do have sympathy with both sides though - Wolftick (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Lighting does have a large influence on paintings, aye. I think this is basically what the painting would look like in relatively dim lighting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  

• Mmmm. I do have sympathy with both sides - too. Hafspajen (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• The thing here is, that as such, filling the display screen, the image looks quite OK, since your eyes adapt to the lower brightness very quickly - but as soon as you have a reference white (such as on this, or any other Wiki page), the painting looks very dull. The histogram tells it all - it is virtually flat on the right one third. It shouldn't be a problem to fix this, I would do it, but the file is a little too big for my already old(ish) merely 4GB RAM computer to handle... (Oh, I remember my very first computer, it had a whopping 16 KB of RAM - note: kilo, not mega, nor giga... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, so ... I have no real solution. Maybe this should be discussed on the project page. Hafspajen (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Adam, I posted Jankes's suggested scan as an alt. Or shall we go with the Fix the brightness/contrast/gamma as Janke suggested? Why do I have a feeling Wolfie won't like that (:)) Hafspajen (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Think the alt's a little too light. I'd like to help, but these massive files are beyond the computers I have. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Let's drop the Sunday on La Grande Jatte then. Hafspajen (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Hafspajen Not necessarily :) I do think editing scans directly sourced from museums has WP:V issues though, so maybe you're correct.

Would suggest keep Original and Alt as is and promote or not according to vote. Currently (Per Adam Cuerden I think) I don't think either is quite right. - Wolftick (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK, Wolfie, as you say. Unfortunatelly there is nothing in the middle. ^{(That ping was not working, Wolfie..., by the way)} Hafspajen (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose original - I'm glad to see other people acknowledging the contrast and brightness issues with these hi-res scans. I feel like we have often ignored it in the past. In response to Wolftick's comments, I think the reason the hi-res scans are dark and low contrast is a simple matter of optics. As anyone who's done photography through a microscope can attest, you have to flood the subject with blinding amounts of light to get anything approaching "normal" contrast in the photograph (as you are spreading a single pinpoint across the entire sensor). Exposing paint to extremely intense light is a bad idea, so I imagine they try to make due with just enough light to get an acceptable exposure. Personally, I prefer lower-res images that have closer to "normal" contrast, i.e. what you would experience without a camera in typical gallery lighting. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Alt jpg Better than the first. Pteronura brasiliensis 17:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• None of the images has enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Among the Sierra Nevada, California

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 18:36:52 (UTC)

Original – Among the Sierra Nevada, California, is an oil on canvas painting by German-born American painter Albert Bierstadt (1830-1902) who was noted for his landscape art.

Reason

Work by a notable artist that is shown in his article and in the Hudson River School article; 4,001 × 2,387 pixels

Articles in which this image appears

Albert Bierstadt, Hudson River School

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Albert Bierstadt

• Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 18:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Hafspajen (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Luminous, ain't it? Sca (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: If Bierstadt ("beer city") is a town in Germany, I want to go there. Sca (talk)

• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support – Here, at least the highlights look proper. Nevertheless, I wonder if the lower left corner really is that dark and featureless in the original painting ? --Janke | Talk 10:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: I experimented a bit, there is indeed some detail in the shadow area. Some careful lightening would be beneficial, IMO. --Janke | Talk 16:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Those barely discernible trees are a bit more visible in this scan, and the hues are less brownish. Sca (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Weak Oppose for these technical reasons. (Fixable?) --Janke | Talk 09:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support.--Explorer999 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoted File:Albert Bierstadt - Among the Sierra Nevada, California - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Vision of the Blessed Hermann Joseph

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 16:00:08 (UTC)

Original –The painting was commissioned from van Dyck by the Sodality of Our Lady in Antwerp, where van Dyk lived a while. The painting shows one of his mystical experiences, encountering Mary

Reason

Good scan, one of Anthony van Dycks rather well known religious painting. St. Hermann Joseph, (1150 - 1241) was a German Premonstratensian mystic. He was actually not formally canonized, not until in 1958, when he finally did became a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, a bit late... (recognized by Pope Pius XII).

Articles in which this image appears

The Vision of the Blessed Hermann Joseph, Hermann Joseph, List of paintings by Anthony van Dyck

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Anthony van Dyck

• Support as nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – has EV with its own article, and good quality sst✈ 07:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Promoted File:Anton van Dyck - The Vision of the Blessed Hermann Joseph - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Delist: Giant planes comparison

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:41:18 (UTC)

An overlay diagram showing the four largest aircraft ever built

Updated values and visual dimensions

Reason

This image, promoted in 2006, has data inconsistent with the specifications listed in the aircrafts' respective articles. Therefore, this fails WP:WIAFP#6 and should be delisted.

Articles this image appears in

Airbus A380, Antonov An-225 Mriya, Boeing 747, Boeing 747-8, Hughes H-4 Hercules, Large aircraft, List of large aircraft

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giant planes comparison.svg

Nominator

sst✈^discuss

• Delist — sst✈^discuss 08:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - If the image is fine but the values are wrong would replacing with an updated version be suitable? It would be easy to edit. If it is deemed necessary the proportions could be confirmed or adjusted too, but a quick check suggest the values are not that far out so I suspect the image itself is still sufficiently accurate. Other than the inaccuracies I like the diagram - Wolftick (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Including the Spruce Goose (a one-off eccentricity from the 1940s which only flew a small number of times) alongside aircraft which entered series production or have had lengthy careers is also problematic. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've now updated the values and visual dimensions of the diagram according to [10][11][12][13]. Suggest either Delist and Replace or update original as new version. Diagram now fulfils WP:WIAFP#6 which was original reason for delist. I don't think the merits of the H-4 being included is in the scope of this nomination. - Wolftick (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Have also taken the opportunity to update the names per Talk:Antonov is missing which makes sense to me from a consistency point of view. Also removed the Intercontinental/I suffixes from the 747-8 as the only two versions are 747-8I and 747-8F which are identical in size making the distinction superfluous. (nb WiiWillieWiki's comment below was made after this change) - Wolftick (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delist and Replace per Wolftick's reasons and because of updated information. WiiWillieWiki 04:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delist SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• As nominator, I would not mind a delist and replace. sst✈ 05:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not enough support for replacing with the updated version. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Diagram of the Sun

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 01:20:55 (UTC)

Original – The structure of the Sun

Reason

Encyclopedic svg diagram by Kelvinsong

Articles in which this image appears

Sun, Stellar structure, Radiation zone, Convection zone, Granule (solar physics), Solar core, Tachocline, etc.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding

Creator

Kelvinsong

• Support as nominator – PlanetUser (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Nominator canvassed on my talk page. sst✈ 05:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Mine too. Sca (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for procedural reasons. Canvassing is a no-no. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Formatting of the "other versions" could really use an improvement (why is it using a horribly huge font?) and a removal of other graphics (planets&comet) which are not other versions of this file but rather an unique files on their own. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Chalkhill blue butterflies mating

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 14:31:09 (UTC)

Original – Chalkhill blue butterflies (Polyommatus coridon) mating at Aston Rowant National Nature Reserve, Oxfordshire

Reason

Shows sexual dimorphism well. Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons

Articles in which this image appears

Chalkhill blue; List of butterflies of Great Britain

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support - OOF top wing of the left butterfly is a distraction. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – Perhaps we should have a new category: Insectisex. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

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