Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.

Promoting an image

If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets.

All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here.

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results.

If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.

Delisting an image

A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section.

Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:.If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance.

Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

  • Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  • Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
  • You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
  • If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case.
Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly.
Prior to giving an opinion, the image should be assessed on its quality as displayed at full size (high-resolution) in an image editing program. Please note that the images are only displayed at thumbnail size on this page. The thumbnail links to the image description page which, in turn, links to the high-resolution version.

How to comment for Delist Images

  • Write Keep, followed by your reasons for keeping the picture.
  • Write Delist, followed by your reasons for delisting the picture.
  • Write Delist and Replace if you believe the image should be replaced by a better picture.
  • You can weak keep, weak delist or weak delist and replace instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
    • To change your opinion, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person.

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

Gray contrast test image.svg
In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting.
Highlight test image.svg
Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting.
Colortest.png
On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background.
Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended.
To see recent changes, purge the page cache.
FPCs needing feedback
QR Code Structure Example 3.svg QR Code
Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg Haydée, ou Le Secret

Current nominations[edit]

Intaglio[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 20:43:10 (UTC)

Original – Banknote portrait pattern made with intaglio printing. Denomination: 1000 Hungarian forint. Depicted area: 18.1 x 13.5 mm.
Reason
Did someone ask for more banknotes? This is a more interesting look at the technology behind some of our favorite subjects here at FPC. One can literally see the incisions in the banknote. Was nominated previously (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Banknote portrait pattern (Intaglio print, tactile effect).jpg (file)) where it ended up at 4-0 so putting this up for reconsideration.
Articles in which this image appears
Intaglio (printmaking)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator
PetarM
  • Support as nominatorMER-C 20:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportDreamSparrow Chat 07:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 10:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That fiber sticking out from the nose still bothers me, so Weak Support... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)



War elephant[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 08:33:10 (UTC)

Original – Hannibal traverse le Rhône, Henri Motte, 1878
Reason
high quality reproduction of work of art
Articles in which this image appears
War elephant, Howdah, Henri-Paul Motte, Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, Portal:Elephants
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
Creator
Henri-Paul Motte
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Interesting, but kinda muddy. Sca (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - [1] - the image this was uploaded over - is a lot clearer; I think this was either over-darkened, or taken from a copy that was over-inked. Also, I hate this kind of destructive crop, where the edges are permanently cut off. Lastly, it's kind of poorly documented. "Scan book" is not a very good description of a source, and kind of raises some doubt about this passing Criterion 7. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 10:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)



Pomegranate Juice[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 03:35:11 (UTC)

Original – Pomegranate with Juice
Reason
Good quality, very good EV and composition.
Articles in which this image appears
Pomegranate, Pomegranate juice, Iranian cuisine, Juice, Juicing
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator
Augustus Binu



Segment of the Surrogate's Courthouse mosaic by William de Leftwich Dodge[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 00:43:39 (UTC)

Original – Segment of the Surrogate's Courthouse (New York City) ceiling mosaic by William de Leftwich Dodge c. 1905
Reason
EV, quality, pretty good shot of an interesting ceiling mosaic in a setting not terribly conducive to photography
Articles in which this image appears
Surrogate's Courthouse, William de Leftwich Dodge
FP category for this image
Artwork
Creator
Rhododendrites
  • Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • How much of the full mosaic is this? It's a great picture, but it's a bit hard to judge how much of something is enough when you don't know what the full thing is. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 04:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Adam Cuerden: I'll try to piece it together from other pictures, since I'm having trouble finding any picture of the whole thing. Here you can see one end. The zodiac symbol on the right is what appears in the nominated picture. Then this one (not mine) shows the rest of the way down, starting with the other zodiac symbol depicted in the nominated image (on the left). Taking straight-on shots of the whole area would not be possible, as much of the room is occupied by a security screening station (sitting below much of what's shown in that second picture). All in all I'd say that this is about maybe 1/10th of the total surface area of the mosaic? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Would've liked to see some of the details of the top in it, but at the same time, curved walls? It would be awkward to even try. Support on the whole. It certainly shows a key repeating pattern, and gives a flavour of it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 15:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - nice detail, but the crop on the bottom is unfortunate (though not substantive, given the difficulty). MER-C 10:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)



Jade vine[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 22:54:33 (UTC)

Original – Jade vine (Strongylodon macrobotrys)
Reason
EV/quality -- a strange-looking, candy-colored plant I'd never seen before
Articles in which this image appears
Strongylodon macrobotrys, Strongylodon
FP category for this image
Plants
Creator
Rhododendrites



Apollo and Daphne (Bernini)[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 20:00:03 (UTC)

OriginalApollo and Daphne is a baroque marble sculpture by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, executed between 1622 and 1625.
Reason
In a follow-up discussion to the below nom I noticed how few FPs of sculptures there currently are. This photo of Bernini's Apollo and Daphne, a prime example of baroque sculpture and the master sculptor's work, presents the subject well with great technical quality. (Looking at various pictures of the setting, the back-lit window appears to be pretty much unavoidable.) Note that I just replaced the original image in the article with a slightly cropped version.
Articles in which this image appears
Apollo and Daphne (Bernini), Uncropped image is also in Apollo and Daphne, Baroque sculpture, Borghese Collection, Gian Lorenzo Bernini and many others.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator
Architas (Note: I just realised the user is blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think this counts against the image's FP-worthiness, though?)
  • Support as nominatorPaul_012 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, a beautiful image and an important sculpture. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Nae bad at all. Like the lighting. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportYann (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Adam. – Sca (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The sockpuppetry concern is not a problem, the operator of the accounts is still in good standing on this wiki as the socks haven't been used to violate policy or stack en.wp FPC. See my comments with my admin hat on here. That said, this image could do a little noise reduction but support otherwise. MER-C 20:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)



Delist and Replace: Kew Gardens Alpine House[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 19:28:20 (UTC)

Original
Proposed replacement
Reason
My original was delisted at Commons a couple of months ago after it was discovered that the deciding !vote in the original nomination three years ago had been cast by a sock of a now-banned user. I was given the option of renominating, but chose instead to reprocess the image taking advantage of what I have learned since the original nomination, resulting in one with more muted highlights on the clouds and the building, easier on the eyes I think. It passed with more support than the original nomination.

So, I have decided that a delist and replace here is warranted as well.

I am the creator and uploader in both situations; I have notified the original nominator here although he has not edited since mid-2016.

Articles this image appears in
Kew Gardens
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alpine House, Kew Gardens
Nominator
Daniel Case (talk)
  • Delist and replaceDaniel Case (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace. MER-C 20:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace --Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace - excellent work. I like the improved composition. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 04:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • D&R – Per Adam. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Haydée, ou Le Secret[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 15:52:25 (UTC)

OriginalHaydée, ou Le secret, Act II set design by Philippe Chaperon
Reason
I love the work of Philippe Chaperon, and Gallica has loads and loads of his set designs for operas. I love that he incorporates characters into his plans, showing how they'd fit into the stage, and work with it. It's really lovely work that's shamefully neglected.
Articles in which this image appears
Haydée
FP category for this image
WP:FP/THEATRE
Creator
Philippe Chaperon, restored by User:Adam Cuerden
  • Support as nominatorAdam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • By the way, I spent some time bulking up the article a bit. It's your typical 18th/early 19th century comedy; there's a dramatic thing in the past, a person who finds out the secret and tries to use it against him, talking in one's sleep, dramatic reveals of who a character really is... the bad get punished, and everyone else gets given positions and titles. Fluff and nonsense, but the kind of thing that's really effective in the moment. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a nice image, and I'd probably lean support. @Adam Cuerden: I'm curious about a couple things, though. The middle person in the foreground -- his left arm is not damage? I'm also looking at the topmost sail. How did you distinguish between the spots you removed and did not. For example, near the very top under where the horse's head would be, there are a few removed and a couple that remain? Some similar-tone spots towards the bottom-left of the sail. I'm not sure if they're something to be removed? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You are definitely right about the arm. I'll fix that once I'm home. As for the spots - they're a judgement call. They can be part of watercolour naturally if there's bubbles on the brush, or be caused later by minor water damage, e.g. a sneeze. I tend to remove the ones that seem disruptive to the art; I'll have another look, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 23:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Having compared things with other signs of damage, I'm getting more convinced about removing some of the specks, and have done so. Check now. @Rhododendrites: Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 00:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as above — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)



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
  • DelistMER-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)
  • DelistBammesk (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist - I still believe the images are too similar to have two featured pictures. Both images are good, but the recent promotion is excellent. Mattximus (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)



First Lady Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt[edit]

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

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 nominatorAdam 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)
  • SupportDreamSparrow 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)
  • Support – great quality and EV. TSP (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportRhododendrites talk \\ 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 20:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)



Variegated golden frog[edit]

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

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 nominatorCharlesjsharp (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)
  • SupportDreamSparrow Chat 11:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 12:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportYann (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)

OriginalRufous-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 nominatorCharlesjsharp (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)
  • SupportYann (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – not significant EV in the first article (article is too weak), but good EV in Ground roller. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as I did at Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 17 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!
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 1 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 2 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 3 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 4 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 5 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 6 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 7 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 8 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 9 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 10 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 11 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 12 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 13 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 14 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 15 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 16 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 17 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 18-19 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
Turgot map of Paris, sheet 20 - Norman B. Leventhal Map Center.jpg
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 nominatorMER-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)
    I think it clearly should appear in the article, as it's explicitly discussed. If it's not there as an image, we should at least wikilink the file to the text describing it. For consistency, I used File:Turgot_map_of_Paris,_general_map_-_Norman_B._Leventhal_Map_Center.jpg. I'd like to see that added to the set, but I think, to avoid nom derailment, I'll just nominate that to be added to the set after this closes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:48, 17 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)
  • SupportYann (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I love the image, but I would like to see it as a single file. The 850MB one is a bit large, indeed, but we have a handy tool for that, which I think is preferable to requiring the user to open each segment separately. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • As I recall, we traditionally allow sets in odd cases like this, even when the smaller subsections aren't used. It doesn't come up often, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Rhododendrites: In case it's not clear, the single combined image is part of the nomination, as well as each of the individual sheets. TSP (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
        • strong support for the single whole map. oppose individual segments. I love the image but I don't like the idea of promoting an image (or 19) that cannot stand on it's own. I.e. I have a hard time conceiving of a set in which each component wouldn't have a shot at being promoted on its own. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)



Assassination of Lincoln[edit]

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

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 nominatorAdam 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)
  • @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)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. MER-C 11:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)



NGC 2170 widefield[edit]

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

OriginalNGC 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 nominatorThe 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)

OriginalCarrie 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



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
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)
  • I am inclined to Keep the two set-images. I added them to History of aviation#Balloons where five of the events are described, hoping the images stay there long term. If you disagree feel free to revert. Bammesk (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If the two set-images (File:Early flight 02561u.jpg, File:Early flight 02562u.jpg) stick, then keep them. I guess the rest have to be delisted, unless someone else finds a home for them. MER-C 20:14, 17 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
  • DelistAdam 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 nominatorThe 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: [2] --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)
Alt 3 – Sepia
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
@Adam Cuerden: I uploaded a real sepia version. You can see the the differences. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:48, 16 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 nominatorMER-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)
  • Comment: I'm not really a fan of collages which don't appear to be obviously so. I'd like the image better if the horizontal separation between the matches were great enough to make it clear that they are distinct images joined together. But that would ruin the composition. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per my !vote at Commons. Here, it gets a boost due to high EV. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)



Rigoletto[edit]

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

OriginalGiuseppe 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 nominatorAdam 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
  • ReplaceMER-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)
  • Delist & replace per nom. The article's illustrated with plenty of images, and the lead image already shows the more common smaller version. I think it's better that the image used to illustrate the code structure also shows how the alignment patterns work in larger versions. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist & replace – per Paul_012. Bammesk (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist & replace here per above. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)



Short-horned chameleon female[edit]

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

OriginalShort-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 nominatorCharlesjsharp (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)
  • 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)

OriginalAmber 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 nominatorCharlesjsharp (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:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the January archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  4. If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}} on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
  5. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

When promoted, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
    • Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
    Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Add the image to:
  3. Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
    The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
  4. Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
  5. Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
  6. If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
  7. Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  8. If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
  9. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} to the top of the section.
  10. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the January archive. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
  11. If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.

Delist closing procedure[edit]

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

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

  1. Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
  2. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  3. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  4. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
  5. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

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

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
  4. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  5. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} page to the bottom of the Delisted section of the archive.

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

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
    • Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
  2. Replace the {{Featured picture}} tag from the delisted image with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}.
  3. Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
  4. Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
  5. Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
  6. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  7. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Replaced section of the archive.

Recently closed nominations[edit]

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

Veiled Christ[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 15:22:12 (UTC)

Original – 1753 sculpture carved from one block of marble
Reason
Just look at it. Carved from one block of marble. Click it two or three times to enlarge detail - that's where the fun is. Self-explanatory. "How'd he do that?"
Articles in which this image appears
Veiled Christ, Statue, the location site and the sculptor's page
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator
Liberonapoli
  • Support as nominatorRandy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. The image is nowhere near FP-quality. Thanks for your interest, though, Randy Kryn. You may want to read up on the WP:Featured Picture Criteria and browse the existing images to get an idea of what we look for in an FP. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I doubt the image's copyright status. I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, remove this amazing image of one of the most acclaimed statues in the world from Wikipedia. Who is "we"? And why isn't it feature quality? No explanation given, and the premises for deleting it are all guesswork with three "probably" reasons involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Paul012 has uploaded another enlargeable image of the statue (which could do with some horizontal cropping). Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This one expands to 1588 by 834. Why wouldn't that size qualify, and why limit the featured picture candidates to such a high bar? Having a discussion on Paul012's talk page, and am surprised to learn that only one marble statue image has ever made it to featured picture. Can this lack of marble statue images be remedied by a change in the wording? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - unambiguously fails resolution criteria (1500x1500 is the minimum unless there are strong mitigating reasons). MER-C 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • How did that become the minimum? This one is 1588 by 834, seems large enough, and a 1500 by 1500 requirement is one that instantly excludes many good images. Maybe a revisit of this guideline is in order. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Your enthusiasm about the subject is noted. This subject likely admits a FP but it's quite clear that the statue deserves a professional grade photographic reproduction. File:Two Bacchantes and a Bull (Vatican Museums) September 2015.1a.jpg is a lot closer to the standard required. (I should note that the FP criteria have required 1500x1500 since October 2012...) MER-C 21:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)



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

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 nominatorMER-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

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

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 nominatorJJ 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)



Suspended nominations[edit]

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