Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Skip to: Table of contents • Current nominations • To be closed • More input needed • Recently closed • Suspended 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).

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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

Step 2:
Create a subpage

For Nominations

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

For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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

Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.

Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.

Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
- To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.

Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.

On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.

Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.

Current nominations[edit]

Delist: Yellow-faced honeyeater[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 12:09:57 (UTC)

Yellow-faced Honeyeater (Caligavis chrysops)

Reason: Superseded by recently promoted FP File:Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg. All usages replaced.
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov08.jpg
Nominator: MER-C

Delist — MER-C 12:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment My inclination on this one is that it's a very different pose and angle, so there might be a place for it, though I don't like the GDFL thing. I'm almost inclined to put it into the article for the image with the caption along the lines of "The bird has a very distinctive yellow streak below its eye", and see if it sticks. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- (This nom defaults to delist, since it's not used in articles, and, on the whole, I'm fine with that. I'm just bringing up the only option for salvaging its FP status) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  - Huh. Actually... and it's a bit late to realise this I know: @JJ Harrison: Isn't the image we just promoted Juvenile plumage? It lacks the black stripe under the yellow. Or is it a subspecies? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    - I think it's an adult - the dark plumage is still visible, it just looks lighter because of the soft lighting. JJ Harrison (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Delist --Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I wish to stand Neutral to this. DreamSparrow ^Chat 14:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

First Lady Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 12:08:31 (UTC)

Original – First Lady of the United States Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt, wife of Theodore Roosevelt

Reason: I love what Frances Benjamin Johnston did with sepia for this. She must have felt so clever, contrasting the white lace with the sepia colours on the dress. Plus, Edith herself was arguably a Civil Rights advocate - at least a fan of Booker T. Washington - and an interesting person. It's slightly cropped in her article with {{CSS image crop}}, which saves on inappropriate crops to the original while fitting it slightly better to a thumbnail.

Lots of scratches and dust; nothing too hard to handle, just a time-consuming careful restoration. I tweaked the levels a bit to bring out the detail.

Articles in which this image appears: Edith Roosevelt; also in a gallery at Frances Benjamin Johnston
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Frances Benjamin Johnston, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Striking image, historically significant. Sca (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sca and Mydreamsparrow: Just as a heads up, I found some more damage, so I've made some tweaks. It should be roughly the same, but the saturation is slightly different, since I keep rethinking.
Support – Same as on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Variegated golden frog[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 18:08:13 (UTC)

Original – Variegated golden frog (Mantella baroni) in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar

Reason: A high quality focus-stacked image of one of the most beautiful frogs in the world. Essential to article
Articles in which this image appears: Mantella baroni, Frog, Mantella
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Works for me, it could almost be paired with an image of it's rather distinct underbelly. Mattximus (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support A good, encyclopedic image. Few minor things stuck to it, but a bit of leaf or some specks don't really matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 00:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support JJ Harrison (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 12:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Yann (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Rufous-headed ground-roller (Atelornis crossleyi).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 17:43:30 (UTC)

Original – Rufous-headed ground-roller (Atelornis crossleyi), a secretive and near-threatened Madagascar endemic in Ranomafana National Park

Reason: High quality image of secretive and near-threatened Madagascar endemic
Articles in which this image appears: Rufous-headed ground-roller Ground roller
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks very good. You were incredibly productive while in Madagascar; how long were/are you there? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 00:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

just over three weeks. Hard work with Madagascar's dreadful roads and everything being done on foot. Nearly every shot requires flash as the few remaining wildlife locations are deep forest. Outside of the National Parks every living thing has been destroyed, so you never see birds perching by the roadside or in fields or grasslands. There aren't any left. Only saved by enthusiastic and helpful guides who are brilliant at finding reptiles and amphibians and carrying camera gear up and down slippery tracks. --Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That's incredibly sad. Wow. What happened to the country? I mean, it's about the size of Britain, isn't it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Widespread poverty and corruption. MER-C 12:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Question Do you have anything of this that isn't quite so nuked with camera flash? The steel-eye and plumage doesn't look natural as is (exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C). JJ Harrison (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

As your exhibits show, this is an extraordinarily difficult bird to photograph. This is the best shot I could get from three sightings in the forest undergrowth. I retouched the eye. The plumage colours look comparable to images that show up on a Google search. I'm actually pretty pleased with it! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Support. MER-C 12:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Yann (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Set: Turgot map of Paris (2)[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 08:20:04 (UTC)

Original – The Turgot map of Paris (full map) WARNING: 850 MB!

Reason: Highly detailed reproduction of this historic map. Last nomination (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Turgot map of Paris) ended up inconclusive (4-1) however I feel this set still merits the star. This is a set nomination. The full image and all 20 individual plates above (20 images altogether) are all nominated.

Articles in which this image appears: Turgot map of Paris
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: Michel-Étienne Turgot

Support as nominator – MER-C 08:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
From the article: "Additionally, there is one simplified general map with a 4 x 5 grid showing the layout of the 20 sectional maps" - shouldn't this be included in the set and on the page as well? Otherwise, looking at the images, I mean, you could restore them a bit. There are some spots and such, but they're so high-detail that it doesn't entirely seem worth it. But I would like to know about the missing piece. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
One of the images is of two pieces: File:Turgot map of Paris, sheet 18-19 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg. MER-C 12:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe Adam's referring to File:Turgot map Paris KU general map.jpg. The other sheets make up a single whole, so it makes sense for them to be nominated together, but personally I'm ambivalent on whether the key sheet should be included - it could be for completeness, but it doesn't have the same value as the main work. It doesn't currently appear in the article, and I can't see why it would ever appear in any other article. TSP (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – Visually inaccessible to the reader/viewer. Sca (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Support as before - great work, and already spawning derivatives that add to a range of articles (e.g. Place Dauphine, Louvre Palace). I'm sure intelligent editors can find a way to feature it on the Main Page - any one of these sheets would be featurable. TSP (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support, but I would like an answer to the question. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Yann (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Assassination of Lincoln[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 01:36:48 (UTC)

Original – The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

Reason: Far better and more accurate than most depictions, beautifully coloured.
Articles in which this image appears: Assassination of Abraham Lincoln + 20 or so
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American Civil War
Creator: After T. M. McAllister; restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Support I'm guessing the colour splodge around Booth's face is origiinal. --Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's kind of typical of hand-colouring: People get a little sloppy. It's not exactly damage, so I'm not sure if it should be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: That'd be my instinct as well; just I know of people who have argued otherwise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 07:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Support JJ Harrison (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

NGC 2170 widefield[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 13:01:50 (UTC)

Original – NGC 2170 widefield view

Reason: Amazing shot of NGC 2170 with a very good EV and exposure
Articles in which this image appears: NGC 2170
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: Rogelio Bernal Andreo

Support as nominator – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - lacks the "wow" of the best astrophotos, the article is also just a stub, thus low EV. --Janke | Talk 17:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why the EV is low. EV of this image is that its the lead image of the article, even though its a stub. EV is usually calculated in terms of the image's EV in the article, not on the size of the article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

One reason for FPs on the main page is to entice viewers to read the article. In this case, it would be a great disappointment. Thus, IMHO, low EV. --Janke | Talk 21:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - loses EV due to the wide field of view. Yes, the stub article concern matters here - I can't easily tell where the nebula ends. Does it include the two regions to the left of the main nebula? There are also (brown) dust clouds throughout the image. MER-C 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Carrie Chapman Catt[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2019 at 10:49:49 (UTC)

Original – Carrie Chapman Catt

Reason: This was nominated during the quietness of the Christmas period, when things were failing to reach quorum left and right. It was only one vote short - with @The Herald: stating afterwards that they were sorry they missed it, and that I should ping them when I renominated it, so it basically had five votes. So, we've picked back up, the new year has started; let's bring some suffragettes into it with us. (Previous nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carrie Chapman Catt)
Articles in which this image appears: Carrie Chapman Catt, League of Women Voters, National American Woman Suffrage Association
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Joint Suffrage Procession Committee(?), restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 10:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Per nom : DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Would've done it before. Good luck this time... The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 12:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - per nom. Mattximus (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Yann (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Delist: Parts of the "Early Flight" set[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 22:54:25 (UTC)

Reason: Quite simply, they aren't used in articles, and, offhand, I don't see any particularly good place where they could be used: the first two are random collections of images, and the third doesn't have a clear message. The last one might be salvageable. Original nomination was kind of weird, but it was from back in 2007. That said, this was a 22-item set, so that (apparently) 18 images are stable and in use is impressive. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 23:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Early flight 02562u.jpg
Nominator: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs}

Delist — Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep High quality images, should be added to Hot air balloon and Hot air ballooning. (Personal comment: I've used many of these in a half-hour documentary I did for Finnish TV. If anyone wants to see the movie, talk to me... ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Janke: I did discover the last one is replaced in articles with File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Zambeccari and his two compagnons in the Adriatic (1804), early flight collecting card, ca. 1895.jpg, which is similar, but has slightly less damage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 12:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Delist Agree with nom, they are not used in any article, and though nice scans, they do not add EV to hot air balloon since we have much better photographs of those. Mattximus (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but we don't "have much better photographs of those" - these images show the pioneers, and photography wasn't yet invented at the time of these balloons / balloonists !!! ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Delist As not used, by definition they cannot be FP --Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: The middle image is now added to the page History of ballooning, so at leat that one is eligible. --Janke | Talk 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since every subimage of that set is in articles except the third image in this set, I'm not so sure that's the wisest choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Pond—Moonlight[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 14:27:57 (UTC)

Original – The Pond—Moonlight, by Edward Steichen

Reason: high resolution copy of an iconic photograph
Articles in which this image appears: The Pond—Moonlight, List of most expensive photographs
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Edward Steichen / Google Art Project

Support as nominator One of the most expensive photograph ever, sold for US $2.9 million in 2006. Only 3 original versions exist, and each is unique. – Yann (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment "The Pond—Moonlight is an early photograph created by manually applying light-sensitive gums, giving the final print more than one color" - given that, is it correct to present it in black and white? Admittedly the original scan doesn't show much colour either; all the other language Wikipedias with an article on it (and our article on Steichen) use this version (I'm guessing from a different print), which is lower-resolution but seems to do a much better job showcasing the unique aspects of this particular photo. TSP (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the scan is only a black and white copy. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - a black and white scan is not a good representation of this work which notable for its colour. I'd recommend it be replaced by this version in articles. TSP (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per TSP. This is definitely a featureable photo, but this B&W reproduction is not. MER-C 12:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Delist: Trepanation and pirates[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 07:51:55 (UTC)

Illustration supposedly of trepanation

Allegedly a picture of pirates, but impossible to tell

Reason: I'm nominating these together, as I think the problems, while somewhat distinct, are similar enough. Neither are used; the Trepanation one has doubts as to whether it's really showing trepanation; and the pirate image just doesn't thumbnail, at all. They're all FPCs that simply failed to thrive: good enough to get to FPC, but the problems meant they left their articles thereafter. Also, as the person who restored, and, I believe, nominated them all (some under Shoemaker's Holiday, my erstwhile pseudonym), I think that I'm uniquely placed to ask this: Remove my FP credits for these.
Articles this image appears in: None.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peter Treveris - engraving of Trepanation for Handywarke of surgeri 1525, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pirates relaxing.
Nominator: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs}

Delist — Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 07:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Delist thanks --Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Delist (with regret). MER-C 10:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Delist as per Adam Cuerden. Yann (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Delist as per nom. Thanks for cleaning up old images that are no longer up to standard. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: This is a bit of history, but for a while, I was upset at... let's call them X - for telling me, about 8 years ago now to trim my list of FPs to just the best ones, when I realised later X listed pretty much everything they had touched. But now I'm kind of glad to have divested of a lot of my early works. The only thing being reminded they existed would do is mean I'd want to delist them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 14:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Delist as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

NGC 772[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 15:11:35 (UTC)

Original – RGB image of the galaxy NGC 772 and dwarf galaxy NGC 770 (top center) interacting. Data from the Liverpool Telescope, a 2 m RC telescope on La Palma, processed by Göran Nilsson. 86 x 100s exposures totaling 2.4 hours

Reason: Great EV and good quality astro picture.
Articles in which this image appears: NGC 772
FP category for this image: link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image
Creator: Goranen, restored and retouched by Benison P Baby

Support as nominator – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Needs more exposure, details are lost. The previous (original) image is slightly better, shows more detail in dark areas, but even that loses a lot of details. If we could find a larger image with the extra detail not visible in this FPC, that could be supportable. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a large enough photo with shadow details like this: [1] --Janke | Talk 09:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - underexposed. The image loses EV because the tidal tails and other effects that result from the interactions with the satellite galaxies (top and top left) are below the surface brightness (detection) threshold of this image. MER-C 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Steerage[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 14:15:56 (UTC)

Original – The Steerage

Alt 2 – Alternative print (Alt 1 removed - see discussion)

Reason: High resolution copy of an iconic photograph
Articles in which this image appears: The Steerage, Photography, Alfred Stieglitz, Fine-art photography, Steerage, Princeton University Art Museum
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Alfred Stieglitz

Support as nominator It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. – Yann (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment There is another version of this, also from Google Art Project, that I've added as Alt 1. It's smaller and less clean, but also has detail the other version is missing; I'd suspect it's from a different original print. (It also doesn't have the skew, which I think is an improvement unless it's an intentional artistic part of the work.) I'm not sure if it's more desirable, but it seems to introduce some questions that are worthy of consideration. TSP (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The pink stain is an issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The overall sepia tint? That can easily be edited (if we understand it wasn't the photographer's intent); just as the skew can be fixed on the other one. The bigger question is making sure whatever we feature is as high quality a version as possible; which generally means basing it on the highest quality possible source. In this case I'm not sure there is a clear winner. TSP (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not sepia, but pink. I made a real black and white version, which can be compared: File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project, from Getty, grayscale.jpg. I don't see any reason to choose this one: smaller, more noisy, etc. If you want to look at other versions, File:The Steerage MET DP232922.jpg is better than your alternative, but still smaller than the original. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Met version may be better than either. Raw pixel count isn't everything if it just represents more grain rather than any more detail - I think the Met version may actually be the best despite being the smallest. The people along the rail all have visible expressions in the Met version, but many are blurs of grain in both the others. It would need cleaning up and probably a contrast adjustment. (Google Art has nine different versions of this photo, all with different merits.) TSP (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I made a grayscale version with some contrat ajustment: File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg. Do you agree to replace your alternative with this one? I would eventually do some restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure - replaced. TSP (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Alt 2 This isn't an image captured in greyscale, this was a sepia image. Two different copies are both sepia, and we're going to arbitrarily change that?! No. We shouldn't make such changes without darn good reasons, especially in the undocumented way this one was, where there's no strong indication the image was modified like that except the filename - which doesn't say "It was changed" just "It's in greyscale", and doesn't link the original.

Seriously. We're nominating this in part as a formative work of art, then are changing the colours? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 10:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much we know about the photographer's original intent in terms of colouration; Google Art Project has ten different versions of this from different prints, which show a fair range of different shades; and I don't know how much that would have changed with the age of each print?

In any case, we also have the original scan from the MET which has the same detail level without recolouration, so that could be considered another alt; though it is a lot yellower than most of the other prints. Ultimately there are dozens of possible versions of this that could be nominated. TSP (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but literally none of the versions are greyscale. I'm inclined to go with the Met version, just because I trust their colour fidelity a bit more. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 03:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Do you have any reference showing that the autthor intended to make it sepia? So far, it is only the effect of time on old prints. And none of our copies are really sepia, but rather different shades of pink. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Things don't just become sepia over time, it's down to how the print is made. See Photographic print toning Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I checked a few spots on the Metropolitan Museum image, and all are Hue 30 or higher, which is pretty solidly in orange, so I'm not sure how you're getting pink. Are you sure your monitor's calibrated? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 17:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Electronic match[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 03:52:04 (UTC)

Original – An electric match, (left to right) before, during and after ignition.

Reason: Saw this at Commons FPC. The high EV composition would be a better match for FPC here than on Commons. (Also the run of animals needs interrupting.)
Articles in which this image appears: Electric match
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics
Creator: Lucasbosch

Support as nominator – MER-C 03:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support The image is heavily manipulated, but the only one that might possibly deceive in any misleading way is removing the motion blur on the lead wires. But then, that just imitates a faster shutter speed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 04:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support : Nice one -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Great EV. --Yann (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per all above. --Janke | Talk 09:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Support as creator. Thanks MER-C for nominating it here, I didn't know about this place! Lucasbosch (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Good example of a picture saying a thousand words. JJ Harrison (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Rigoletto[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 03:51:34 (UTC)

Original – Giuseppe Verdi's Rigoletto, Act IV.

Reason: A beautiful set design illustration that, in a slightly less finished state, has been stable in Rigoletto's lead for around three years.
Articles in which this image appears: Rigoletto
FP category for this image: WP:FP/THEATRE
Creator: Philippe Chaperon, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 03:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 10:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Is it possible to copyright a scan of a PD artwork? (Retouching, i.e. removal of imperfections, being the only change.) If not, then the copyright info is misleading. --Janke | Talk 09:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Janke: I live in the UK, so yes, one can copyright a restoration. Other places it's more ambiguous. I tend to just release copyright unless the project was incredibly massive (and don't do it as much anymore at all; this restoration was started two years ago), hence why it hasn't come up much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 20:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks appealing to me and it's just fine to captivate readers from the main page. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Replace: QR Code[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 03:40:48 (UTC)

Structure of a QR code, highlighting functional elements

Proposed replacement

Reason: Replaced in article due to a factual error.
Articles this image appears in: QR code
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/QR Code Structure
Nominator: MER-C

Replace — MER-C 03:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but at the scale it's shown at, the replacement seems much harder to read? Also, is it showing the same format? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 03:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(1) It's used at a width of 400px in the article. (2) I'll quote from the talk page of the current FP: "Since this is a version 4 (33x33) QR symbol, it doesn't actually contain version information. That is present only in version 7 (45x45) and larger symbols. If version information were present, the two blue blocks would contain the same pattern of dark and light (but rotated 90 degrees)." The replacement image shows a v7 QR code. MER-C 03:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this version commonly used? The examples in the wild don't include 'em, but then, I'd imagine that there's a limit to how and where they can be photographed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 04:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The version selected is governed by the amount of data to be transferred. Searching "QR code" in an image search engine suggests smaller QR codes - lower version numbers - appear to be more common. MER-C 04:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I'm afraids I can't support a replace, because it's misleading as to the structure of the more common ones as it shows information not present in them, and can't support keeping the original, because it's inaccurate. I can only support fixing the original and turning this into a set, or neither being featured. Delist Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 04:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment – Meh. Sca (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Short-horned chameleon female[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 11:14:03 (UTC)

Original – Short-horned chameleon (Calumma brevicorne) female near Andasibe-Mantadia National Park, Madagascar

Reason: High quality image. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Short-horned chameleon
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Wow, looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support An excellent shot. How'd you get the black behind it? Night sky and lighting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 09:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

They cannot be found easily during the day, but at night they sleep on small braches near the ground so that predators can't get them without disturbing the branch. I used a low-level on-camera flash and hand-held off-camera slave unit for the main lighting. There was a lot of ill-informed dabte on Commons FP about the ethics of flash use. Chameleons have (compared to us) tunnel vision so they will hardly notice a flash from, say 20 degreees off line. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Very nicely done! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 20:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Support. Excellent photo. From the Commons FPC, it's a night shot - these chameleons are easier to find at night. MER-C 10:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support :-- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Amber mountain rock thrush male[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2019 at 11:05:03 (UTC)

Original – Amber Mountain rock thrush (Monticola sharpei erythronotus) male, in Montagne d'Ambre National Park, Madagascar

Reason: High quality image of endangered bird; considered a separate species (Monticola erythronotus) by some authorities.
Articles in which this image appears: Amber Mountain rock thrush, Montagne d'Ambre National Park
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support A lovely shot. Nice use of bokeh to separate the bird from the background. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 09:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per above. MER-C 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support : Per above -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Nominations — to be closed[edit]

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

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

Closing procedure[edit]

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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.
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.
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.
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.
If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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}}.
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}}.
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.
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.
If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure[edit]

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

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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:

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

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.
Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
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}}.
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.
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.
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.
Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.

Recently closed nominations[edit]

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

Yellow-faced Honeyeater (2)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 03:29:24 (UTC)

Original – Yellow-faced Honeyeater (Caligavis chrysops), Lake Parramatta Reserve, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: I owe this image a renomination. The original nomination reason was "High quality, well lit, encyclopedic pose." On reflection, it's a little premature to consider delisting of File:Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov07.jpg. I still think the FP star should be moved, so if/when the nominated image is featured, I'll do a substitution and separate delisting nomination then.
Articles in which this image appears: Yellow-faced Honeyeater (and potentially others)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – MER-C 03:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support : As far as there is no proposal for "delist and replace", I support this too. DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 16:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Why not delist and replace? I don't see the purpose of having two simultaneous featured pictures of the exact same bird. Mattximus (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the intended result, but I can't get there in one step: see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg. MER-C 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Should be promoted once other image is delisted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
support as the nominator has promised to delist the exisitng FP as soon as this is promoted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sooty Oystercatcher (2)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 03:24:24 (UTC)

Original – Sooty Oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus), Doughboy Head, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: I owe this image a renomination. The original nomination reason was "It's of high quality and encyclopedic value". On reflection, it's a little premature to consider delisting of File:Haematopus fuliginosus Bruny.jpg. I still think the FP star should be moved, so if/when the nominated image is featured, I'll do a substitution and separate delisting nomination then.
Articles in which this image appears: Sooty Oystercatcher (and potentially others)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – MER-C 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support : As far as there is no proposal for "delist and replace", I support this. DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Aye, I did me best to sort those ones out, but.... it gets confusing when you change the scope of a nom. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 16:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I don't mind delisting and replacing, but I do not think we should have 2 pictures of the exact same bird featured at once. Why not delist and replce? Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: The last one failed to be promoted, or the old delisted because it was turned into a delist and replace after starting, and that's not permitted. And nothing will ever get delisted pre-emptively. I, for one, would instantly vote "oppose" if anyone tried that. Arguing procedure isn't helpful here; what you want is a policy change that allows that kind of change to delist and replace. Also, realise that there's problems with that in and of itself - look at the crow one, where one of the usages of the alternative was very high value for an entirely different class of articles. In that case, a delist and replace would fail, and it couldn't be turned into a promote.

We either need to separate them, or make rules for adding replacements to a nomination that's ongoing. Anything else is just going to be hugely problematic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 04:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment Should be promoted once other image is delisted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: There's no reason to delist if another one isn't promoted first. The images are not so bad to deserve delisting on their own merits, and all have some minor usages. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 04:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Can someone design a delist and replace? There's a facility in VI to do it. I'd be happy to support if the FP nominator (not the author) promises to delist once the new image is promoted. Can we agree to that and add to nomination guidelines? See talk page --Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: It's a little more complicated than that. The problem is there's no way to move between a nomination and a delist and replace, and there are some subjects - and I'd argue birds can be one - where there's a little ambiguity as to whether an image should be delisted if a new one is added.

Let's move this to WT:FPC, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 07:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

support as the nominator will delist the exisitng FP as soon as this is promoted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Noisy Pitta[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 02:59:28 (UTC)

Original – Noisy Pitta (Pitta versicolor), Kembla Heights, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: High quality photo of what the article fairly describes as a 'shy bird'
Articles in which this image appears: Noisy pitta, Pitta (genus)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 09:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - per nom. Mattximus (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pitta versicolor - Kembla Heights.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Scarlet Myzomela[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 02:59:25 (UTC)

Original – Scarlet Myzomela (Myzomela sanguinolenta) male, Windsor Downs Nature Reserve, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: Good quality image to compliment a featured article
Articles in which this image appears: Scarlet myzomela
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 09:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. I love the composition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per nom. Mattximus (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Myzomela sanguinolenta 1 - Windsor Downs Nature Reserve.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Golden-headed Cisticola[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2019 at 02:59:36 (UTC)

Original – Golden-headed Cisticola (Cisticola exilis), Cornwallis Rd, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: Encyclopaedic image
Articles in which this image appears: Golden-headed Cisticola
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per nom. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 22:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - detail on wing is obscured by artifacts. I'm afraid you've overcooked the JPEG compression on this one. MER-C 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Cisticola exilis - Cornwallis Rd.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Replace: Maddison Elliott[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 08:41:05 (UTC)

Maddison Elliott is an Australian swimmer

Proposed replacement

Reason: Chronologically superseded in its article - current FP was taken for 2012 Paralympics, proposed replacement was taken for 2016 Paralympics.
Articles this image appears in: Maddison Elliott
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maddison Elliott
Nominator: MER-C

Replace — MER-C 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Since there is a 2012 image in her article as well, replace, even though I think the older photo is slightly better composed. Fun fact: A friend of mine is the mother of a Scottish paralympic athlete. I should ask her about photos. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 08:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Replace – Bammesk (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I've slipped the old one into the article for now. I think there's enough justification for it to be in there, but the FP star should move at some point. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Replace – newer photo has higher encyclopedic value. feminist (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Suspend nomination to give it time to stabilize in the article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There is not enough support to replace the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days), it can retain that status. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Soldiers on tank[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2019 at 15:59:25 (UTC)

Original – A M48A3 tank of 1st Battalion, 69th Armor, 25th Infantry Division with soldiers on its back moves through a destroyed Viet Cong camp south of Pleiku during Operation Lincoln in the Vietnam War

Reason: High EV, high res. Representative of American tank operations during this period of the Vietnam War.
Articles in which this image appears: Operation Lincoln (Vietnam), 69th Armor Regiment, M48 Patton
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
Creator: United States Army Signal Corps photographer

Support as nominator – Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - poor composition. I agree with Yann on Commons that this should be landscape format and the crop on the left is too tight. MER-C 04:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, per opposition here and at Commons, mine included. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose due to motion blur / camera shake and weird colors (the latter probably due to scan from negative/slide). --Janke | Talk 10:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Enceladus (mosaic)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2019 at 07:53:56 (UTC)

Original – South polar vantage of Enceladus's anti-Saturn hemisphere, using a false color scheme in which fractured areas show up as blue

Reason: High EV, high resolution
Articles in which this image appears: Enceladus, etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a renomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Enceladusstripes cassini.jpg. Weak support as before: Cassini-Huygens has been decommissioned, and there is no better equivalent image on [2]. MER-C 12:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, still has same issues noted at Commons FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support as before. This isn't Commons, we judge by the encyclopedic value, and this isn't replaceable without sending another spacecraft. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 09:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per prev nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Round ribbontail ray[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2019 at 08:10:04 (UTC)

Original – A camouflaged round ribbontail ray

Edit 1 - much closer to original contrast, shake reduction filter instead of unsharp mask

Reason: High EV underwater photo (which makes up for the technical shortcomings) that is featured on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Round ribbontail ray
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Creator: Rucha Karkarey

Support Edit 1 as nominator – MER-C 08:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Support – SNN95 (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment – Nice example of protective coloration, I guess, but lack of contrast makes this image difficult to access visually. Sca (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 - Nice picture with good EV, though the right side is a bit tightly cropped. Comment to Sca, its actually behavioral exhibition of the subject, bit more contrast may destroy the EV IMO. -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Support edit 1 Imperfect, per Sca and DreamSparrow, but given the difficulties of underwater composition and the value of the demonstration of its camouflage, I'd say it's good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 18:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Edit 1, Oppose Original The edit by PJeganathan on this file is awful - the shadows are blown, the highlights are blown and there is an unnatural level of contrast. It's not encyclopaedic. This isn't the case with the original image uploaded by Ruchakarkarey. I would have reverted it if not for WP:FPC and COM:FP etc. I've uploaded a new edit with a much more minor adjustment of contrast relative to the original and the use of a camera shake reduction filter to improve the sharpness quite a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Edit 1, Oppose Original Wow the new version is much much better. Mattximus (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Edit 1 --Yann (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Round ribbontail ray from Lakshadweep JJH edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hou Yifan[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 14:24:54 (UTC)

Original – Hou Yifan, chess prodigy.

Reason: The size is massive, so the fact that it's somewhat grainy at full resolution isn't much of an issue: A slight downscale, [3], say, would show it still has loads of quality to it. I like the action pose. It's an excellent photo of the highest-ranking female chess player in the world.
Articles in which this image appears: Hou Yifan
FP category for this image: Either Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Andreas Kontokanis

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 14:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Support – I love the game -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Support It's a shame about the glare on her glasses, but it would have been unavoidable and this is otherwise an excellent portrait. The EV is very strong. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Photographing someone at a tournament has advantages and disadvantages. The great atmosphere and poses are advantages, but things like the glare... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 23:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  - The trade-off seems worthwhile here: the fact that the photo depicts the subject playing chess at a tournament (the reason for her notability) more than offsets the glare issue. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Support – I uploaded a slightly denoised version. The image was shot at ISO 1250, the noise/grain showed at full size, especially the white parts of the eyeballs were distracting. The denoise radius is 1 pixel so effectively no loss in details. Bammesk (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I would like to support this, but I find the lens flares to be too distracting. MER-C 05:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the bright circles to the left of her face, this image [4] shows more of them, and these images [5], [6] show what they are. Being part of the bokeh and not too bright, I am Ok with it, given the EV. Bammesk (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That should make it easier to perform a selective darkening. I don't care if it is removed completely, it just needs to be darkened enough to not be distracting. MER-C 05:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of the participants would mind if you make the change and upload on top of the existing file, or as separate file. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Still a little distracting, but definitely better. Support. Revert if unwanted. MER-C 08:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment – Black is tough to photograph, but her hair looks rather inky. Sca (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose It is grainy and I find the glasses distracting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Hou Yifan (29762728494) (cropped).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Justice K. T. Thomas[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 04:52:50 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of Justice K. T. Thomas, a former Supreme Court Judge, in robes.

Reason: Portrait of one of the important justices to sit on the Supreme Court of India in robes, there lies the EV. Justice Thomas was awarded Padma Bhushan, the third-highest civilian award in the Republic of India in 2007. Good quality and well composed.
Articles in which this image appears: Justice K. T. Thomas, List of Marthoma Syrian Christians, St. Albert's College
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Mydreamsparrow

Support as nominator – DreamSparrow ^Chat 04:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Ah, you finally nominated it! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 14:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment – the personality section of his article says "5,00,000 people are living in at most agony", is that 500,000 or 5,000,000? If so many people were negatively affected, why was he awarded by the government? It's confusing. Can the article's neutrality tag be resolved? Bammesk (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
See Indian numbering system. Anyway, I've removed it under the BLP policy. MER-C 04:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
MER-C, still the photograph meets the FP criteria, is it not so ? -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 20:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Almost. I have a couple of minor, fixable concerns - lack of sharpness, slight overcompression and some CA. Do you still have the RAW? I'll support a higher quality export to JPEG and reduction of the CA. MER-C 05:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
MER-C, corrected as suggested. Y : DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The compression and sharpness are better, but are you sure you've performed a lens correction? The white balance has changed (in a way I prefer) but the chromatic aberration - the green tinge on the shoulders - is worse. MER-C 07:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Y -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 12:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – EV (though the wall mounted frame behind him is distracting and unfortunate). DreamSparrow: he retired in 2002 and the file description says the image was shot in 2018. Is 2018 correct? Bammesk (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bammesk, True, it was shot in 2018 : DreamSparrow ^Chat 03:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Support JJ Harrison (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Justice K. T. Thomas.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dataran Lang[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2019 at 02:25:12 (UTC)

Original – Dataran Lang or ‘Eagle Square’, is the location of large sculpture in the shape of a sea-eagle perched on rocks in a pre-flight pose in Kuah, Langkawi, Malaysia. This 12-meter high statue greets visitors who come to Kuah by ferry as they ride to the jetty. The eagle is the emblem of Langkawi Island as its name "Lang" is thought by some to have been derived from the Malay word for eagle that is "helang". The square is a landscaped area with ponds, terraces and bridges, where visitors may stroll and view the sea.

Reason: Is of a high technical standard, high resolution and has a free license.
Articles in which this image appears: Kuah#Dataran Lang
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator: SNN95

Support as nominator – SNN95 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
~~Support~~ - CyberTroopers (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
You need 100 edits to support or oppose an image. MER-C 04:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose – sorry but not high enough quality, it's shot with a smartphone and the file size is small (473KB). Almost any dedicated camera would produce a higher quality image. Bammesk (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Image needs a perspective correction, the detail isn't there, and the sky has plenty of JPEG artifacts. MER-C 05:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Support, high quality of image. Chongkian (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I approved it as a quality image on Commons, but I don't see it meeting the FP standards here or there technically. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Corvus splendens eating[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 09:34:39 (UTC)

Original – Headshot of a House crow (Corvus splendens) eating, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Reason: High quality, of good encyclopedic value, Featured and Valued on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: House crow
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: GerifalteDelSabana

Support as nominator – GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Transcluding nomination. MER-C 09:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment : EV ????? : -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The article specifically states the crow feeds on refuse produced by humans. This image shows exactly that. It is used only in a gallery in an image packed article, though. MER-C 05:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok. In that way it deserves Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 07:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. As MER-C points out, the article is over-illustrated, and this image is only used in a gallery. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per my comment above. I'm sure with quite a bit more prose many images from the gallery can be promoted to the article text (including this one) because they carry distinct information, but now is not the time. MER-C 06:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Masih Alinejad[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 08:34:14 (UTC)

Original – Masoumeh "Masih" Alinejad-Ghomi is an Iranian American journalist and author.

Reason: Getting things started during/after the holidays with this well executed casual photo of a notable person.
Articles in which this image appears: Masih Alinejad
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Kambiz Foroohar

Support as nominator – MER-C 08:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Support – Awesome quality, good EV and well composed portrait : -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Was kind of eyeing this one myself. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 13:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. Brilliant candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Support - Great EV and a fascinating portrait chsh (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Excellent portrait with good EV Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Support, per my support at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted File:Masih Alinejad.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

War pigeons[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2019 at 18:03:04 (UTC)

Original – Swiss Armed Forces preparing a war pigeon to deliver its message.

Reason: This is one I've been eyeing a long time... and is my second restoration of the image, because there was a higher-quality negative I could restore from. Of course... *slightly insane laugh* But no matter. It's done.
Articles in which this image appears: War pigeon, Swiss Armed Forces
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/WWI
Creator: Anonymous/Swiss Federal Archives; restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 18:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 09:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 12:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Withdraw It looks like there's still a little more detail to be brought out that GIMP ate. Fuck. Third restoration it is! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 09:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 18:47:32 (UTC)

Original – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Retouched by Alexis Jazz, third version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Retouched 2 by Bammesk, second version – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal

Reason: iconic photograph. After a long debate, it finally appears that the copyright was not renewed.
Articles in which this image appears: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
Creator: Joe Rosenthal

Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this jpeg version due to strong artifacts, either from editing or jpeg compression. The sky is heavily speckled - compare with the png or tif versions. --Janke | Talk 20:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Janke: I could propose File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg, but overall, I think this one is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the jpeg artifacts. The nom image has a lot more detail than the png and tif versions. ~~Support~~ (revised my vote below) , iconic and good quality for a 1940s war photo. Bammesk (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Support This is a decent version of this iconic photograph: the EV is huge. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Support this new version with less noticeable grain & artifacts. --Janke | Talk 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Reading the arguments on Commons [7], [8], [9], [10], no one has established that copyright was renewed. The summary of Commons arguments are: copyright might have been renewed and that such renewal could not be confirmed in the renewal records [11]. Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
On a sidenote: the photo was published without a copyright notice in a 2016 book [12] [13] of 100 influential photographs by Time magazine. 32 of the 100 photos have a copyright notice and 68 do not, the Iwo Jima photo does not: [14]. This gives additional credence to the public domain arguments on Commons.
@Geni: Also this LoC copyright notice. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support -- KTC (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 12:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Support - I've not yet looked closely at the copyright arguments, and will defer to Commons folk to sort that out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Support GMG ^talk 14:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support all versions, I'll leave it to others to decide which is best. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I've collected links to the copyright discussions on c:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Retouch discussion[edit]

Comment the retouched version from Bammesk should be uploaded as a separate file (c:COM:OVERWRITE). While it looks better overall, some details were also lost, so the original needs to be kept as a separate file. If Bammesk uploads the restored version as a separate file and we're voting on that, ~~you can count a support vote from me as well.~~ I'll vote more clearly above. Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I found another version with less compression artifacts. The sky still looks speckled, I suspect the photo was saved as a .gif at some point. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I added a retouched version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yann, Bammesk, Nick-D, Janke, KTC, MER-C, The NMI User, Rhododendrites, and GreenMeansGo: An alternate image was added the nominations. Please update your !vote to indicate which version(s) you support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh cool. I see lots of dust spot removal, which I wasn't going to fuss about given the nature of the photo. Is there anything else I'm missing? GMG ^talk 21:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: the sky was blurred. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded another retouch, Retouched 2, made from the higher quality original that Alexis Jazz gave us here. Both retouched noms are worthy of support. My upload has less artifacts and is a bit sharper along soldier/background boundaries, smoother left valley, smoother background between soldier's arms/legs, and I touched up the lower left edge. ~~Also touched up a couple of spots based on the negative image here: [15], [16]~~(no longer so, see below). ~~I Support both retouches but prefer Retouch 2~~ (revised vote below). Bammesk (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Either of the versions are OK for me, but Retouched 2 is slightly better. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've improved my retouched version a bit. You may have to refresh the page/image in your browser. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I'll say that I prefer some retouched version to the original, but my retouching expertise is mediocre at best, and so I don't pretend to have an authoritative opinion on which version is better. GMG ^talk 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

~~I prefer retouch #2~~. MER-C 18:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: can you say why? Perhaps I can improve my version. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Retouch 1 has sufficiently improved over #2 in the time since I wrote that comment. ~~I now prefer #1 as the specs that were there are there no longer.~~ MER-C 15:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this after the dust has settled, I prefer #2 due to the white streak on the side. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I prefer #2, but two comments: (1) why is the [rivet?] on the helmet of the soldier on the right noticeably brighter in just that version? (2) in both retouches there's a space between the leftmost and second leftmost soldiers, around waist level, that looks to be actually a gap between them rather than a blemish on the photo itself, but it's smoothed out... (in case that isn't clear I've added an annotation to that image on Commons here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not a gap but actually light that is reflected off of the handle of a holstered knife, more easily seen in File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal.jpg. I've corrected my version accordingly. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I don't understand your first question? About question 2: as I said above, I used the negative image here: [17], [18] as a guide. The gap is smaller in the negative, that's what I went by. However looking at the negative more carefully, it has bleeding (or diffusion) because it is old, which would make the gaps smaller. So I did a recheck of all gaps, and compared the print gaps to the negative gaps, and it turns out all print gaps are a few pixels wider than the negative gaps. So going strictly by the negative is not a good idea (because of the bleeding). I redid the gap and did an upload (also redid another tiny gap/spot at shoulder level, plus helmet of left soldier, the things I had relied on the negative for). Thanks for the question! Bammesk (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Can you say what you mean in your first question? Nothing “on the helmet of the soldier on the right” is “noticeably brighter” in any version! Bammesk (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been following and I'd just like to say that maybe this discussion is not yet ripe to be closed. The images are evolving, which is ultimately for the good of the project(s), and this is an iconic image of the type we don't often see discussed. GMG ^talk 22:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I agree. I'm not sure if we are done retouching (unless someone points out flaws in my version, I am) but if we are it still leaves us with three images to pick from. Since I created one of them, I support all three. There are arguments for sticking to the original and between the retouched versions it'll largely be matter of taste. Bammesk filled in the gaps one way, I did it another way. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For reference, Commons promoted the original. MER-C 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually 16 of 18 votes on Commons here were for a restored version uploaded at 02:11, 29 August 2018. Bammesk (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC) . . . Obviously the higher quality original uploaded later at 09:16, 4 September 2018, is more deserving of promotion, but not when there is a cleaned up version of it, IMO. Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
So how exactly ought we go about finding some resolution to this nomination? GMG ^talk 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Everyone, who already voted, should indicate which version(s) they support. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I swapped my preference to retouch 2. Putting my admin and ex-FPC closer hat on, I would now close this as promote retouch 2 if I hadn't had voted - the choice is between the retouches, and #2 has more first preferences than #1. MER-C 11:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Re-pinging participants. This has been open now for almost two months, and we do need to try to find some type of resolution.
@Yann:@Janke:@Bammesk:@Nick-D:@Geni:@Alexis Jazz:@KTC:@The NMI User:@Rhododendrites:@Armbrust:
GMG ^talk 12:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: As I said, I support all three. But I will say this: when I added to/updated Wikipedias, I used the original. Leaving it to the Wikipedias to switch to a retouched version. No Wikipedia (zero, not Norsk Wikipedia) (zero, the number, not Wikipedia Zero) made the switch. - Alexis Jazz 18:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Support retouched1 I think this is an improvement on the original, and retouched2 looks a little bit washed out Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I very slightly prefer Retouched 2, because of the area to the right of and below the leftmost soldier's right foot looks a lot better in this one. I think that tilts the balance to let this be closed. @Armbrust:? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 17:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this some more, I withdraw my support for "both" and now support retouched 2 only. A) The original and retouched 1 have a white strip on the lower-left edge of the image. This is fixed in retouched 2. B) In retouched 1, the noise reduction (blurring) of the sky area is uneven, some areas are heavily blurred, other areas not at all. For example, in retouched 1 the sky area near the lower-right edge of the image, and sky areas adjacent to soldier's bodies have no blurring and are identical to the original image. In retouched 2 the sky noise is blurred uniformly everywhere. C) Looking at the original image, the background field (the far hill behind the foreground rubble) has similar noise/grain as the sky. That area is slightly denoised in retouched 2, not in retouched 1. D) The original has a scanning artifact along the edge of the flagpole (bottom portion of flagpole), visible when enlarged, say at 200%. The artifact appears as a white line along the pole's left edge. There are similar artifacts elsewhere along the edge of soldiers' clothing. These artifacts are removed in retouched 2, not in retouched 1. Bammesk (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal retouched 2.jpg --feminist (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Promoted Retouched 2 version feminist (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Leila Usher[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2019 at 02:21:14 (UTC)

Original – Leila Usher next to her bas-relief of Susan B. Anthony

Reason: As far as I can tell, the most iconic image of her, insofar as it was widely published (see documentation on the file description page, which includes the press release.) Rather deeply in shadow, but that's an artistic decision. I've adjusted exposure to bring her out of the shadow a bit.
Articles in which this image appears: Leila Usher, Susan B. Anthony
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Underwood & Underwood, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 02:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm somewhat hesitant to support this due to the subject blending into the background (not your fault - I suspect the contrast wasn't there to begin with). Otherwise good EV. Weak Support, I guess? MER-C 05:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sooty Oystercatcher[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 04:14:51 (UTC)

Original – Sooty Oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus), Doughboy Head, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: It's of high quality and encyclopedic value
Articles in which this image appears: Sooty Oystercatcher
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Support A fine level of detail, and every bit of the bird is sharp. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 06:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
~~Support~~ - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The nominated image is functionally equivalent but superior to File:Haematopus fuliginosus Bruny.jpg, an existing FP by the nominator. The nominated image displaced the existing FP in the article. Replace it with this image, support if that is not possible. MER-C 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks MER-C. I'm happy enough with replacement. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment lovely picture, and I'm happy to support, but I don't think we should have 2 featured photographs of the exact same bird... we should decide on one. Mattximus (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, I'd oppose that statement - different views can convey different information. In this case, I'm more neutral. If replacement is the consensus other than my vote, treat my vote as replace. I do think this whole replace thing feels like it could unintentionally derail the nomination, though, so we should probably be careful about that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 14:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Replace – and delist existing FP, nominator agrees with replacement, above. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Per MER-C, I do suggest Replace, if that is not possible support this : -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Armbrust, looking at the above I see 5 users who favor "replace", 3 users in bold letters and 2 users in plain text. So I don't understand the close? Bammesk (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- See "How to comment for Candidate Images" in the lead of WP:FPC. "Replace" isn't an option. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  - Ok. "Replace" implied "delist" (replacement can only happen after a delist), so the intent of the participants was "delist and replace", but the participants didn't express their intent in the proper format. I suggest moving the nom to the section: "Older nominations requiring additional input from users" and then pinging the participants asking them to express their intent in the proper format. Not promoting, at this point, effectively ignores the intent of the participants. Bammesk (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    - Bammesk The problem is that in a "candidate nomination" delist & replace isn't a valid option either. You either support or oppose the image being promoted (including their weak variants). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Australian Raven[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 04:10:15 (UTC)

Original – Australian Raven (Corvus coronoides), Doughboy Head, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: High quality image
Articles in which this image appears: Australian Raven
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Almost perfect. Tiny bit of blur on the tail and back, but the rest is sharp enough to count the individual barbs on the feathers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 06:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Support - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. MER-C 12:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Turns out we have an existing FP of this one as well: File:Corvus coronoides.jpg. Replace that if possible. MER-C 19:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@MER-C: In this case, I think the other one has very high value in Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology) that the more formal view could not replace, so would vote against replacement. Both have high value in at least one article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 14:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with this point. MER-C 16:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Qono (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Jusdafax (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Corvus coronoides - Doughboy Head.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yellow-faced Honeyeater[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2019 at 04:06:58 (UTC)

Original – Yellow-faced Honeyeater (Caligavis chrysops), Lake Parramatta Reserve, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: High quality, well lit, encyclopedic pose.
Articles in which this image appears: Yellow-faced Honeyeater
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
~~Support~~Vote updated to Replace below Again, excellent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 06:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
~~Support~~- So cute - DreamSparrow ^Chat 09:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
This image is similar but superior to an existing FP, so replace File:Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov07.jpg with this image. Support if that is not possible. MER-C 12:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Unsure. Different poses do have different information. It is one of those GDFL ones, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 17:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  - The nominated image displaced the existing FP in the article. MER-C 18:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    - Oh. Then Replace. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 19:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Replace old Featured Picture. Only 1 image should be featured for this bird. Both are lovely photographs though. Mattximus (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@MyDreamSparrow and JJ Harrison: Are the two of you alright with "Replace?" As things stand, I'm not 100% sure we have a clear quorum yet. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 14:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mydreamsparrow and JJ Harrison: Trying this ping again... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Sorry I'm not well trained to look at Wikipedia's new-fangled notifications yet! JJ Harrison (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Per Mattximus and Adam Replace old FP : DreamSparrow ^Chat 14:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Armbrust, looking at the above I see 5 users who favor "replace", 4 users in bold letters and 1 user (the nominator) in their answer "Fine with me" to Adam's question: "Are the two of you alright with Replace?". So I see consensus to replace. I don't understand the no promote? Bammesk (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- See "How to comment for Candidate Images" in the lead of WP:FPC. "Replace" isn't an option. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  - Ok. "Replace" implied "delist" (replacement can only happen after a delist), so the intent of the participants was "delist and replace", but the participants didn't express their intent in the proper format. I suggest moving the nom to the section: "Older nominations requiring additional input from users" and then pinging the participants asking them to express their intent in the proper format. Not promoting, at this point, effectively ignores the intent of the participants. Bammesk (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  - But replace requires the nominated picture should be featured, no? I may renominate these as D&R when participation next picks up. MER-C 07:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    - Bammesk The problem is that in a "candidate nomination" delist & replace isn't a valid option either. You either support or oppose the image being promoted (including their weak variants).
      MER-C The D&R process isn't, IMO, really there to replace images with a completely different one. This was discussed in December 2013, but nothing came of it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
      - I think it's reasonably clear that the voting participants were of the view that the image should be promoted. I think whether the other image should be delisted ought to be separate issue and a corresponding delist nomination. Similar story with the oystercatcher image. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
        I've gone ahead and renominated both images. If the result is promote, then I'll replace the other usages and nominate the older images for delisting. MER-C 03:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspended nominations[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Contents

Current nominations[edit]

Delist: Yellow-faced honeyeater[edit]

First Lady Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt[edit]

Variegated golden frog[edit]

Rufous-headed ground-roller (Atelornis crossleyi).jpg[edit]

Set: Turgot map of Paris (2)[edit]

Assassination of Lincoln[edit]

NGC 2170 widefield[edit]

Carrie Chapman Catt[edit]

Delist: Parts of the "Early Flight" set[edit]

The Pond—Moonlight[edit]

Delist: Trepanation and pirates[edit]

NGC 772[edit]

The Steerage[edit]

Electronic match[edit]

Rigoletto[edit]

Replace: QR Code[edit]

Short-horned chameleon female[edit]

Amber mountain rock thrush male[edit]

Nominations — to be closed[edit]

Older nominations requiring additional input from users[edit]

Closing procedure[edit]

Delist closing procedure[edit]

Recently closed nominations[edit]

Yellow-faced Honeyeater (2)[edit]

Sooty Oystercatcher (2)[edit]

Noisy Pitta[edit]

Scarlet Myzomela[edit]

Golden-headed Cisticola[edit]

Replace: Maddison Elliott[edit]

Soldiers on tank[edit]

Enceladus (mosaic)[edit]

Round ribbontail ray[edit]

Hou Yifan[edit]

Justice K. T. Thomas[edit]

Dataran Lang[edit]

Corvus splendens eating[edit]

Masih Alinejad[edit]

War pigeons[edit]

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[edit]

Retouch discussion[edit]

Leila Usher[edit]

Sooty Oystercatcher[edit]

Australian Raven[edit]

Yellow-faced Honeyeater[edit]

Suspended nominations[edit]

Navigation menu

Search