Comment: It doesn't look like any glass I've seen someone drink whiskey out of, and it doesn't seem to match any of the listed items. Am I missing something, here? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dont tell me, its for wine ? ;)... 1. Is it problem to check google before such questions ? Maybe you are used to drink it from regular Bar Tumbler, in Germany. --PetarM (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I'm not German, nor do I live in Germany. Perhaps the nom should be retitled Whisk(e)y-tasting glass? Sca (talk)
Oppose. I shouldn't need to check Google to understand what I'm looking at- it should be more than clear from the articles in which the image is used. Without this kind of context, the image lacks encyclopedic value. This nomination is premature. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is it listed in the Beer Glassware section of the article? Per Josh Milburn, I'm not sure one should need to conduct a Google search to understand the image (which appears to be made by only a single manufacturer) and has a much closer resemblance to a glass for Grappa.--Godot13 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 17:03:35 (UTC)
Original – Nymphaea odorata (Fragrant Water Lily) ssp. tuberosa with it's pads, a bud, and duckweed
Reason
This image offers a superb technical view of the species, objectively meeting criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and it readily illustrates the unopened blossom, the plant's leaves, and the flower's petals, sepals, and stamens.
Comment Oppose – Nice comp., but somehow (is it just my eyes?) the blossom itself seems a bit shy on detail. DOF? Sca (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just your eyes. There is something very slightly unsatisfactory about the main focus of the picture, the centre of the flower. Not sure if it's blurriness, or lack of contrast, or some combination. 31.51.134.46 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I don't know. The other images aren't lit with the same light of course and your edit has made her a bit bilious instead of icy, but I'm wavering on the authenticity of the original. I think I'll strike my support and wait for somebody else to comment and then adopt their opinion as if it was my own. Belle (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support original The metadata suggests there was no digital manipulation, implying this was the original lighting at the concert (seamless; I see Brandmeister has already agreed with me) Belle (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support original The metadata suggests there was no digital manipulation, implying this was the original lighting at the concert. Very slight adjustment could still be made, I think alt is a quite radical change. Brandmeistertalk10:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT I prefer this version. Although this has had some manipulation, I feel it has improved the picture... gazhiley07:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an amusing image, but it's not a particularly great photo of either the car type or a parking violation. The image is a little bit blurry, slightly tilted and doesn't clearly illustrate these subjects given the number of other things going on (especially the car behind the Lamborghini. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Nick-D - this almost seems a joke nom. Not focussed, driver still in car (so is this even being parked? Could be pulling into or out of the bay, or just driving through it?), quite in-your-face advertising, parking sign not straight, etc etc. No offence intended if this was a serious nom, but well below par if so. gazhiley08:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's one lame Lambo. Сте́нька — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 29 June 2015
Oppose. I don't think it's a great image to illustrate either article to be honest. I don't think Yann would nominate an image as a joke, but perhaps he has misjudged it in this case. I would expect for an image illustrating a parking violation to more clearly show the problem. It's really not clear to me that the car is parked illegally at all, but perhaps I'm not familiar with Swiss road signs. It would be ideal to at least show some sort of parking ticket affixed to the windscreen. Isn't that the universal sign of a parking violation?! ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read my wording. I assume it wasn't a joke, and no offence intended to Yann with my wording. I only meant it was such a strange nom it seemed like a joke. Nothing personal... gazhiley09:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I think the quality is quite good, there is EV, and additionally there is some humour. You don't like it? Never mind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 11:38, 1 July 2015
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 23:57:09 (UTC)
Original – The Indonesian poet Iman Budhi Santosa reading from his collection Sesanti Tedhak Siti in 2015; though his professional career was originally in agriculture, he has been publishing work since the 1960s.
Reason
Good quality "action shot" of a poet reading his own work. Since the cover is turned away from the viewer, we don't have any copyright issues.
Support Bersertifikat intergalaksi! 90% bersertifikat anyway, I would have liked it if there was more of his right arm in shot, but good enough for FP, I think.Belle (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High quality, high EV, prior image was very small and low resolution. Lead image with css image crop used to produce appropriately sized thumbnail in the article. Second nomination, first time resulted in 4 support and no opposition. (Please view at full size)
How could I resist Brandmeister's special request here for some Robinson Crusoé? It turned out to be a good one: I didn't have any Offenbach in the queue, and it's a very nice image.
Support I know I said I was boycotting you until we got some comical animals, but this has got a cockatoo (no monocle or cape, so not perfect but you are heading in the right direction). Belle (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Technically it's quite nice, except for one thing. Is it possible to get a version with less harsh shadows? I appreciate the difficulty in doing so, but it would look quite a bit better — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2015 at 23:38:14 (UTC)
Original – A Netherlands Indies silver rupee from Java, 1803. This predates the first paper money in the colony by 12 years.ALT - Reverse orientation corrected.
Reason
Impressive image of a coin. The script here is Jawi, an Arabic-based script used to write Malay; I don't think we have any featured pictures with the script yet. Not that I can read it worth a darn, but...
Support I don't pretend to understand it - I presume there's some sort of (possibly obsolete) local script used on it? The article on Jawi alphabet doesn't help at all. Otherwise, this coin is an extreme rarity for the time period insofar as it has no text on it besides the date. Is the image on the right upside down, or is there both a 6-like and 9-like character in the script? Adam Cuerden(talk)10:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, Adam. The m-like character is an S, and should be looking like a W. Sadly, owing to the lighting, any attempt to fix it looks really wonky. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the original (lighting is more even), but I also support ALT (though I get the feeling another couple degrees counter clockwise would work better). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't thinkt he alt works with them side by side. Maybe one above the other, so there's a point for light to have eminated from between them? Adam Cuerden(talk)03:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) This is far below the quality of most of our church shots (vertical distortion, leaning) and 2) the photographer was not Fae. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A really interesting view, not particularly high quality though. ISO 1600 for an interior shot might be necessary for hand-held, but it kind of kills the image quality. Ðiliff«»(Talk)18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with the first objection. Entering the water in diving gear seems to me to be an integral and indispensable aspect of underwater diving. 86.152.161.192 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That objection seems to be like complaining that a photo of a saturn 5 rocket during takeoff isn't spaceflight. It may not be underwater diving, but in a couple seconds it will be, and it's the starting point for most underwater dives. MChesterMC (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example. A Saturn 5 rocket would have EV in the Saturn 5 article, so even if it didn't have EV for space flight, it would have EV for the rocket. This does not appear in any other articles, so there's nothing to save it. Besides, we've got numerous images of people actually in the water, including one FP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image shows the shoulders and back of a diver wearing a surface-supplied diving helmet. Perhaps if there was a section on giant stride entry in the Surface-supplied diving article the image might be a more suitable illustration. In an article on general underwater diving, to lead off with such a specific and narrow aspect of diving seems like a misplaced image. With all due respect, from an EV perspective, the U.S. Navy training image tells me absolutely nothing about general underwater diving (and may misinform those that think the illustrated underwater diving gear is common).--Godot13 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Godot. If we had information on the entry technique, this may be worthy of FP, but as for now it doesn't have the necessary EV. IP, how exactly is it a good example to compare something which requires new text to be written to have any EV with something which has EV just for showing the object in question? They are not equatable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – On EV grounds. If we are illustrating underwater diving, we should probably have a picture of a diver underwater. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 06:17:46 (UTC)
Original – Bas-relief in Persepolis – a symbol Iranian/PersianNowruz – on the day of an equinox, the power of an eternally fighting bull (personifying the Earth) and that of a lion (personifying the Sun) are equal.
Support – Per Adam (again!). Is there a date estimate available? Maybe 4th or 5th Century BCE? (And can we shorten the nom title please?) Sca (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had four supports, no opposes in the recent FPC that happened during one of the occasional low participation periods. I think it came out very well, and I didn't see anyone actually saying otherwise.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 09:52:41 (UTC)
Original – Crew of an M-24 tank along the Naktong River front. On the ground is Pfc. Rudolph Dotts, Egg Harbor City, N.J. gunner (center); Pvt. Maynard Linaweaver, Lundsburg, Kansas, cannoneer; and on top is Pfc. Hugh Goodwin, Decature, Miss., tank commander. All are members of the 24th Reconnaissance, 24th Division.
Reason
An unusual find here: A colored image from the Korean War depicting the crew of an M-24 Chaffee Tank, which supplemented the M4 Sherman tank in the months after the end of World War II. The crew is shown in the early months of the war.
Support Lots of film grain, but for the period, and given it's "in the field", not bad at all. Very clean image - only spotted two specks, and I'm not even entirely sure they shouldn't be there. Adam Cuerden(talk)10:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What process was used to create the plate? Some kind of engraving? In any case, not sure if offers additional EV for this short-lived historical figure. (To me, the recent monument pic is more interesting.) Sca (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should be wood-block engraving; it uses a couple rarer techniques (such as the dotted grid effect used for the sky), but has all the hallmarks of it. I think its stability in the article for three years shows at least some EV. Adam Cuerden(talk)14:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is it just me or does it look like it was "cut out" and placed on a white background. The borders of the plant seem unnatural. Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You are not alone... The edges seem very rough/jagged. The white background has two black specs on it and tallest point on the left side has had something removed (which is still visible).-Godot13 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 23:39:06 (UTC)
Original – A Ngayogyakarta-style blangkon, decorated with gold and silver sparkles. Thought to have descended from turbans, blangkon have become a part of Javanese cultural identity.
Reason
High quality image of this traditional Javanese headgear.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 21:12:02 (UTC)
Reason
The image is of a high technical quality, resolution, and EV. This is the first upload of an image of this specific panel ever added to Commons or Wikipedia.
Oppose and speedy close - Below the minimum resolution of 1500 px * 1500 px. And not just a little below it. The height is only 688 px. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure my camera isn't good enough, but I drove 47 miles of dirt road and hiked 7 strenuous miles over the course of 6 hours in 100 degree heat to get this shot. Sorry I uploaded a version that was technically too small, but can you please cut me some slack here? RO(talk)00:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks. I still have to oppose, though, as the blotchy effect from the high ISO level doesn't work. The distortion is still there, but not as bad as I thought it would be. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's really hard to troubleshoot technical issues if we don't know the equipment. Just like a Mac will have different trouble-shooting steps than a computer running Windows 8 (*shudder*), a Canon DSLR and a Nikon point and shoot will have their own approaches to solving issues. I really want to get behind a picture, but the technical quality isn't there. Camera phones and point and shoots will have a hard time at FPC even in the best of conditions, and the inside of a cave is not "the best of conditions".
At the very least I'd have brought a tripod, to be able to shoot with a low ISO even in dark areas. Assuming, of course, that was allowed.
But your advice is to buy a more expensive camera. So that's not really "input to help you improve your photography", because I already knew my camera was not professional quality. I thought EV held more weight than technical capability. I was obviously wrong about that. Sorry I wasted your time. RO(talk)00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said point and shoots have trouble (and yes, they do). I didn't say they didn't pass, ever. There are ways to improve the results. Tripod for stability and low ISO (i.e. less blotchy noise). Minimizing distortion by backing the camera up, making use of the sharpest part of the frame (i.e. the center 60% or 70%), then cropping out the undesired bits. There are ways of making it work (i.e. this and this and this). It's just hard. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2015 at 23:41:00 (UTC)
Original – An interior view of Wrocław Główny railway station at night; this train station, located in the Polish city of Wrocław, was opened in 1857 but extensively refurbished in 2010-2012
Reason
Well, last time everyone was unhappy with the moving train. Here's a train station image that doesn't have one.
Oppose - Below the minimum resolution, and yes, there should be the reverse. The only FPs in our currency category that don't have the reverses are those which indeed didn't have any reverses whatsoever. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer being level too (we discussed this already on Commons!), but Carlos is right, it is a good way of ensuring that only the court and player is visible. There's some beauty in the simplicity of a shot like this. From ground level, it's much harder to avoid a distracting background - the best way is unfortunately expensive lenses! Ðiliff«»(Talk)19:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 11:19:15 (UTC)
Original – Hand-coloured title page to a very early (probably first edition) vocal score of Fromental Halévy's L'éclair. Halévy is a little neglected nowadays, but was very good and very talented.
Reason
A high-quality early - probably first edition - vocal score image. and, unlike the other ones, it's in colour. Oooh!
Comment – Has this bas relief been eroded or partially effaced? It doesn't have the contrast/shadows to reveal its form like the bull & lion below. (Perhaps oblique lighting would help?) Sca (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the few survived bas relief in Persepolis. No need to have any shadow and special lighting to display the form of work. Even curve of beard is shown and clear. thanks for your commentAlborzagros (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Was giving this one 24 hours, as I do like the nom - but the darkness in the shadows is too much... Too much missing detail for me sorry... gazhiley07:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now for something a bit more modernistic and art deco: Ariadne auf Naxos. First performed 1912 and revised 1916, this vocal score is of the revised edition, and nicely art deco.
@Yann: Harvard seem reasonably good for colours. I suspect any tweaks that would make any significant difference would also be misleading, as I strongly suspect the paper was fairly dark from the start. It might have been a little lighter, but it's a very well-preserved book on the whole. And it's not like the black-and-white images (or even images that include black and white) where we can know, with some certainty, what the original intent for colours was; any tweak is just as likely to make things less accurate. Adam Cuerden(talk)11:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Having gone through most of the images Adam wanted, I have to agree: Harvard's library is, on the whole, pretty faithful. I don't doubt that this is closer to the original than an edited version would be. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took this picture at noon and within ten days of the solstice, so how could the main subject be in shadows? RO(talk)23:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's backlit, it will end up in shadows (and those are really harsh at noon, in the New Mexico desert). The original upload is very much in shadows as well. Morning or evening light is generally more manageable and pleasant to look at, though not always practicable. You'd also have to consider the time of year and day; when I took the picture of Sambisari, proper lighting for that shot was only available between 2 and 4 p.m. between November and February (too early and the shadows were either too harsh or pointed towards the camera, too late and the shadows ended up too long; outside of November–February, the sun was to the north, and thus the subject would have been in shadows). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be some focus or processing issues, most noticably to the right hand side, around where the dead tree trunk is resting on the wall... Almost seems like an echo of the image, although I don't know the technical term... The whole image seems soft, possibly due to the lighting that Chris Woodrich referred to... gazhiley08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that's from the lens. Quite curious, actually, about what equipment has been used here. I've only rarely seen this strong distortion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It's not stitched; it's just a working class camera. Please withdraw this nom, as it obviously won't pass here. RO(talk)18:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High quality, high EV, condition, and rarity. Napoléon coins (gold) with the effigy of Napoléon Bonaparte were issued in 20 and 40 franc denominations, from 1802 to 1814, depicting him as either First Consul or later Emperor. Note: The reverse of both coins have a single spot of residue (wax?). On the 20 franc it is above the “R” (inside the wreath). On the 40 franc it is just before the rim at 4 o’clock.
No indication that this, in fact, a tondo. The 'frame' is painted on. It's not unheard of for a rectangular work to be given a tondo-esque set up. See, for instance, the lead image in Jacques Specx. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 16:52:45 (UTC)
Original – A male Lyriothemis acigastra, a dragonfly species native to India, photographed in KadavoorSecond image in the set – A female Lyriothemis acigastra, a dragonfly species native to India, photographed in Kadavoor
Reason
A well-composed shot of a very rare species; while some may feel it falls a little short of the very high insect standard we have set, we are lucky to have a picture at all. According to a recent study, some details about the species are unreported; this, the authors say, "may be due to its secretive nature and rare occurrence". As such, I think we should be willing to overlook minor technical imperfections. We also have a female and a mating pair from the same photographer.
A high-res version of this has been excavated and uploaded over the previous one. Having compared it with a more general museum view (the Castelvecchio Museum itself doesn't seem to have a digitization of this), I'd say this is faithful (and the metadata indicates this digitization comes from Scala Archives, which seems to be a reliable source).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 23:56:55 (UTC)
Original – The Sega Nomad is a portable version of the Sega Genesis, released in 1995, which was the last handheld released by Sega. It was undersupported and sold only a million units; as such, it has been considered a commercial failure.
Yep, it had a bit of a bulge, like this, and the bottom curved away like so. Guess Sega cared a bit more about ergonomics. (And yeah, I never had something like this. I had a Genesis, but it went belly up in 1997 or so) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'd prefer a straightened handheld position in which it was played. I didn't had it either, but still, those were the beloved 90s... Brandmeistertalk14:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that "sexy" was my comment on the nomination, not a new variation on my signature (though, obviously, that's true too). Love, Sexy Belle (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC) (that's how I'd do it if I was doing a new signature. Belle (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 02:20:58 (UTC)
Original – Ten Canadian dollar note (1935). First note (serial number 1) of the 1935 issue by the Bank of Montreal, depicting J. Dodds and C.B. Gordon with signatures by the same.
Reason
High quality, high EV, superb condition. The very first note from the 1935 series issued by the Bank of Montreal.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 22:55:39 (UTC)
Original – From the article: "Kue gapit is an Indonesian kue kering (dry snack) which originates from Cirebon, West Java. Generally made from tapioca flour, its name comes from the cooking process, in which it is grilled between iron molds. The snack comes in a variety of shapes and flavors. Though it is a popular souvenir among visitors to Cirebon, residents of the region rarely eat it."
Reason
High quality (macro) image of this traditional Indonesian wafer
Comment. The scale needs to be labelled. (I don't buy the argument against doing so, by the way. The percentage of literate people in the world who do not understand "1 cm" must be small, and changing it would be pretty trivial anyway for anyone who really wanted to.) 109.153.225.51 (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is likewise trivial to include the scale in a caption in articles, as necessary. And that has the added bonus of being language-appropriate. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures get separated from captions when they are copied and used outside Wikipedia. Also, the absence of the scale annotation just looks like a mistake. It doesn't seem plausible or conceivable that anyone would add a scale and deliberately not label it. 109.152.148.119 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures can also be turned pink, purple, or neon green by reusers. To make an album cover, one reuser added grain and deep shadows to an image I took. They can copy the scale, or remove it, or label it themselves. The license doesn't limit them from doing it. If they don't care to copy the size (which is, after all, noted in two separate locations) denoted by the scale, that is their prerogative. That you could not previously conceive of a scale bar that isn't labeled on the image itself doesn't that they don't exist. Here are two other examples: Nature, Journal of Neurophysiology. Yes, labeled bars are more common. No, unlabeled bars are not "implausible" or "inconceivable". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previously the difficulty of editing the scale label (e.g. to translate) was advanced as an argument against putting it on the image. Now the ease of editing the scale is advanced as an argument against putting the label on the image. 109.153.232.72 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or is your issue with the statement that "text is not as easily replaceable (in JPG) as in SVG"? It's true. Properly coded SVGs simply require us to open the file in notepad and edit the text. We don't have to worry about formatting or location. JPG requires image editing software, the patience to orient the text properly, and the ability to choose an appropriate font (unless you think a plain straight line goes well with Comic Sans or Ye Olde Font). I said it was more difficult to edit a JPG. I didn't say it was difficult.
Support. I find the arguments in favour of an unmarked scale (especially the fact that major scientific journals publish them) persuasive. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or alt - I might consider cutting away the spine, but either one works for me. Classic butler image and story. Very high EV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am not happy that this image is freely licensed in the eyes of the WMF while the spine remains. Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag and Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag are both clear that the legal precedent relied upon applies only to two-dimensional works, going so far as to say that coins are not eligible. I am not comfortable with the claim that this is a two-dimensional work of art at the present time. Unless Bonhams (or the copyright holder of the photograph) has released this image, I am not happy that this is free.Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have considered that a de minimus inclusion. In effect, it's merely a minor horizontal compression at the left hand side, with a darkening gradient. Particularly in this case, that is such a minor difference from a true 2-D scan of the paper bookcover as to make no difference, as with the stained glass example listed on those pages.. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if de minimis applies in this case, not least because it's relying on case law. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really want to pretend to be one. Without seeing a policy page or statement from someone representing the WMF, I feel quite strongly that we should be erring on the side of caution in unclear cases. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly allowed "[a]s long as the surface is not noticeably curved", which is what's going on here. Again, I don't think this specific case is actually covered by our guidelines, and I do not think that we should be pushing the limits by promoting images of unclear status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's probably worth pointing out: The way that the book is presented pretty much guarantees it was a straight, purely mechanical reproduction. Compare the spine on File:Charles_Kingley_-_1899_Westward_Ho!_cover_2_-_Original.tif - that's just a straight "book set on scanner, scanned" image, and shows pretty much exactly the same effects on the spine. Surely there has to be some artistic decision to grant copyright. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under US law, yes. Personally, I think the scan itself (as opposed to the cover) is below the TOO; it's a simple scan, not a photograph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo says that "it looks very much to [him] like someone just jammed the book on a scanner and pushed the button. So no new copyright would arise from that, for sure". I cautiously agree with this. I see that a Commons policy page explicitly states that "The scan / photocopy itself, as a purely mechanical and non-creative act, cannot create any new copyright for the person who did the scanning. Such an image lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more. That rule applies internationally and, on Commons, is normally taken for granted." I suppose this means that there are at least some differences between scans and photographs (for example, a photograph of this book cover would be copyrightable, as per Godwin's advice concerning photographs of coins). Do you agree with this? If so, the remaining question is whether this is a scan or a photograph. Is there some way we can tell? Metadata, perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Let's go back to the Original, since I've actually removed a couple signs it's a scan when restoring it. First of all, note the two parallel vertical green lines - most easily seen in his hair. That is typical of an older scanner. See "Sharp / Focused streaks" and "Blurry / Unfocused streaks" at http://www.hackworth.co/hints-tips-for-optimum-contex-scanning-2/ for examples. I'd probably say the latter, but it doesn't matter.
Secondly, look at the car on the left. A dirty mark on it can be seen, going past the edge of the book. I can't see any way to make that and have it focused on a camera lens, but a bit of grime on a flatbed scanner's bed will do that.
Thirdly, scanners have low depth of field, and the lighting trails off quickly as it's produced at the scanner. Note how, on the left hand side, it gets darker quite suddenly, and also gets a lot of artifacting. That's typical for a scanner.
Fourthly, this doesn't show any signs of tilt or perspective distortions so far as I can tell. That would be possible with a camera, but it would require a very perfect positioning. It's trivial, however, with a flatbed scanner.
I think the first and second points on that list are pretty much smoking guns. I honestly can't see how they would happen with a camera. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very thorough, thank you. I have struck my oppose; feel free to collapse this discussion. (I will think further on supporting. I do think it's a great candidate, and I'd love to see more vintage book covers, but I'm still bothered by the spine for reasons other than copyright.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn and Adam Cuerden: Even if the css cropped version were to go in the articles, I think the first question needs to be which one is the FPC nom- the original or hard-cropped Alt. I understand the scanner versus photograph, it may be "cleaner" (re 2-D vs. 3-D) to just crop it, IMO, but it's not a deal-breaker. As is, I do get a little distracted trying to see around the spine of the book, but it is purely an aesthetic issue to me. --Godot13 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would support a hard-cropped version. I've enjoyed a few Jeeves novels and think this artwork captures him well enough. I think the spine adds nothing. Julia\talk18:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either I prefer the original as the crop shifts Jeeves off-centre a little and does us out of the front of the car on the left (what is going on in the back seat there? Girl attacked by shark-dog hybrid?); I didn't want to put "support original" though, as if any of my adoring entourage turn up and sycophantically parrot my opinion we could split the vote and end up with neither picture (luckily my posse is mostly imaginary, but let me tell you it is a real problem on Bellepedia). Belle (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A nice example of a first-edition book cover. Scan by the Library of Congress, which, while it could be even higher resolution, doesn't appear to be leaving anything out of the image. It should probably be noted that the Library of Congress can claim no copyright whatsoever, and thus, no matter what is decided about spines of books in the My Man Jeeves discussion below, it doesn't matter here.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 23:46:26 (UTC)
Original – A cloth portrait of the Buddhist monk Atiśa, produced at a Kadam monastery in Tibet in c. 1100. Atiśa helped the spread of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
Reason
Very high quality photograph of this near-contemporary portrait. Please note that the MET replaced this version with a subpar image sometime between 2012 and 2014; the Wayback Machine did not record the page before then, so I can't be sure when that was.
Good size, good colors and high quality. Depicts well the Proclamation of the Republic, hence the high EV, and is displayed in Brazil-related first-class important articles like Brazil and First Brazilian Republic.
Support I like that the horses are so fast that they leave a trail of smoke behind them; also it meets the FP criteria. Belle (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 17:02:23 (UTC)
Original – Short Final at Palm Springs International Airport
Reason
Already featured on Commons this photo has been used on a number of global projects and shows the pilots perspective on short final into Palm Springs International Airport shot though the 4 bladed propeller of a Pilatus PC 12.
comment this was a tough shot. This plane has a 4 blade prop and you can see portions of it in the picture so the balance was tough to obtain. talk→WPPilot06:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the technical difficulty of this shot, I can forgive the slight variation in focus - the EV is huge for this Airport as you don't see this view very easily! gazhiley12:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you could have got a better shot in a deckchair attached to helium balloons (they love those near airports), but for runway enthusiasts it is hard to fault the EV (I'm not one, but I did try to empathise with them while reviewing). Belle (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 18:28:00 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, high EV, condition, and rarity. The gold mohur has existed since the middle of the 16th century denominated in fractions ranging from 1/32 of a mohur to one mohur. A double mohur was struck in 1826 and 1828 by the Amritsar Mint, and once again in 1835 depicting King William IV (obv) and a walking lion and palm tree (rev). (Only 1,170 of the 1835 double mohur were struck). While depicted on other Coins of British India at earlier dates, Queen Victoria first appeared on the mohur in 1862, which also saw the reverse design changed to a beaded circle and wreath. Both coins were struck at the Calcutta Mint: the 1835 Two Mohur by authority of the East India Company, and the later 1862 One Mohur under the British Raj.
Weak oppose – This pic was recently subbed for this one. Personally, I find the previous photo sharper and more visually interesting, due in part to contrast from shadowing. (Though I realize the nominated pic shows more of the ruins.) Sca (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to FPC#5, "A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as 'EV') is given priority over its artistic value". My picture has significantly more EV than the previous one, which showed only a small portion of this massive complex. RO(talk)16:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Useful, but it only shows parts of the ruins, and the lens distortion around the edges (particularly that right edge) is horrendous. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not for me sorry - the whole picture is blurred, other than a very small part in the centre... Cropping the edges doesn't change that... gazhiley14:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just the light but it looks washed-out to me. I prefer the panorama shot in the article (also yours) though being a lazy cow I've only had a quick look at it. Belle (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor nom is getting no attention; sure it looks like a bit of brain matter has fallen on some lichen, but that's what it looks like. Belle (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it didn't even have a picture before I added one. I missed that part of the FP criteria that requires the FPs are not in stubs. Can you please point me to the relevant text? RO(talk)15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has to do with gauging EV of subject / topic – admittedly subjective. (Please note that a comment is not an oppose vote.) Sca (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EV aside, there is a lot of softness or motion blur - very little detail visable, especially in the background cliff face... gazhiley10:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 00:37:19 (UTC)
Original – From the image caption: An air-to-air view of a Convair NB-36H Peacemaker experimental aircraft, part of the attempt to design a nuclear powered aircraft deemed the Convair X-6, and a Boeing B-50 Superfortress chase plane, during research and development taking place at the Convair plant at Forth Worth, Texas. This plane was modified to carry a three megawatt, air-cooled nuclear reactor in its bomb bay. The reactor was operational but did not power the plane. The NTA completed 47 test flights and 215 hours of flight time, though this is the only known airborne reactor experiment by the US with an operational nuclear reactor on board.
Reason
It's a plane meant to be powered by nuclear energy. Technical quality is good for its age, and the coolness factor makes me feel like a little boy again, imagining holing up against zombies in the Diefenbunker... (I was, needless to say, a little strange)
Support – Aviation-history EV. Interesting that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union developed test planes but soon abandoned their programs. (Hard to understand how a nuke could actually "power" a jet or turboprop engine.) Sca (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was a "small" (how many meters? five? ten?) reactor. Theoretically, such an airplane could stay up indefinitely... no small wonder why they wanted to make it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with an unusual topic. I am fairly involved with the Skeptics movement in the UK, and Merseyside Skeptics Society are one of the most important groups in the United Kingdom after the award-winning Edinburgh Skeptics, who have excellent taste in speakers. Anyway! Conferences are a bit of a hard place to get good photos in, but I think this is a quite good one. The height differences affect the composition, but otherwise, it's quite good. Conflict of Interest note: I do know Michael Marshall a bit, and have been introduced to Alice Howarth. However, I am acting as my own person in this. I also know the photographer. Still acting as my own person, though.
Neutral - Technically quite good, but I'm not too sure on the composition. I'd have found it better with their faces more central, rather than a 3/4-length group portrait — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, notable subjects (they have two articles - that's good enough for me) and the poses they are displaying show character. Happy to support this... gazhiley09:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with the IP editor above. While useful, this image isn't of featured quality given the problems with its composition. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not FP: tallest or shortest should be in the middle, too tight framing, small distracting elements (exit sign, light over shoulder). They don't seem sceptical about posed photos... --ELEKHHT06:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 19:22:29 (UTC)
Original – Modern Hopi have interpreted the petroglyphs at Mesa Verde's Petroglyph Point to depict the Eagle, Mountain Sheep, Parrot, Horned Toad, and Mountain Lion clans of Ancestral Puebloans.
Reason
The image is of a high technical quality, resolution, and EV.
Comment – It's an okay photo, but once again EV is doubtful. Only info about this petroglyph is in caption; nothing in article. (Note: Most of the capitalized words in the caption shouldn't be capitalized.) Doesn't appear at Petroglyph. – Sca (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both Eagle and Mountain Lion clans, as well as the other names, are proper nouns in this useage. EV is doubtful; this is the first picture on Wikipedia of petroglyphs at Mesa Verde. What's your definition of EV? RO(talk)22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 00:36:46 (UTC)
Original – Nymphaea odorata flower
Reason
Well detailed image of the flower, making it easily identifiable, with good technical quality, and does not suffer from under or overexposure. It offers some scientific detail as well, with clear view to the reproductive organs, three of the four bracts, the top side and underside of the lily pads, developing lily pads, and venation on the underside of the lily pad is visible. A few stems of the lily pads are visible as well.
Comment - Sca, not entirely sure what's wrong with the DOF, but there was only cropping on the top left and left sides. The flower was about 4 inches across, so I just got as close as possible.SanctuaryX (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not super-tight, but I really liked the more inclusive composition of the first nom. If you could just enhance the detailing. Can't advise re current digital photo tech – I'm an' ol' dog. (What would Monet do?) Sca (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The edges of the cross-sectioned image feel a bit too soft (but not enough for a comment or oppose), and the EV is clearly there.--Godot13 (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like some sense of scale; I have no idea if I can eat these by the bowlful or whether I have to dislocate my jaw like a snake to eat even one (I never mentioned the snake jaw thing btw; I forgot it's covered by my Illuminati NDA) Belle (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 20:43:04 (UTC)
Original – Philippe Chaperon's set design for Act IV, Scene 2 of Giuseppe Verdi's opera Aida for the 1880 performance in Paris.
Reason
A high-quality example of 19th-century operatic set design, from the première of a rather important opera. I did a bit of restoration to it because it was damaged enough (mainly on the border) to be distracting, but it's faithful to the original. Zoom in for a sense of scale.
Comment Is it just me, or is the tip of the adult baboon's tail out of focus/soft, especially in comparison to the rest of its body? RO(talk)18:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. It's a natural result of the limited depth of field produced by the camera and lens at 150mm and f2.8 (the very tip of the tail is a little out of the focus zone; focus drops drastically with this combination). It's so minor, however, that I don't have an issue with it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both should be wearing top hats for it to be perfect, but as it's so rare to capture them in evening dress that I think I'll have to let that slide. Belle (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2015 at 11:11:23 (UTC)
Original – Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm f/1.8 with visible 6 diaphragm blades which create aperture opening. Opened at f/2.8. Number of blades is relevant to bokeh, higher number of blades make bokeh more natural.
Reason
Good quality, high resolution macro stack of 2 photos, focus on front and on the blades.
Oppose. I agree, the "[c]hopped-off appearance" of the lens by the soft surface it's resting on, and the very tight bottom crop, spoils its circular shape. —Bruce1eetalk06:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 01:20:57 (UTC)
Original – A studio shot of turmericrhizome. It is usually ground up and used as a spice in Indian cuisine. This image shows a whole rhizomes, slices, and ground-up powder.
Support Nice that we've got a suckling piglet and a Dune Guild Navigator in the picture too (I'm sure if this is a Rorschach-type test I've probably just revealed I want to sleep with my imaginary friend; a pig and Dune imagery in the tumeric picture; classic presentation.) Belle (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request it will be good to know: it is a focus stack and made from how many images? Where are the exif data? It's a pity not to know this important and educational infos :-( Otherwise a nice image! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support-This spice is being used by Iranian housewives very very very much as there is very few Iranian meals that don't contain turmeric. This is a reality not kidding. I haven't seen the turmeric root (the shape like this above) till now. Alborzagros (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference for Alt. Excellent potrait. Shame they placed the paper backdrop so close behind her, it's a little distracting to be honest! But other than that, the lighting and composition are good. I'd probably have cropped it a bit tighter around the left and right sides for a square frame though. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weird left eye (her left); if the photographic jargon of "weird" is too technical for you, I mean the iris and pupil are noticeably stretched vertically and it appears to have a line down the sclera; if anybody says that's my eyes making it look weird I will cry (but only one extra long tear from my weird elongated left eye). Belle (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is totally the same picture as the second one with the background cut out, but I don't see anything so weird in that one (if anything I'd say her right eye was bigger there). Belle (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't think her eye looks weird in those pic, but it definitely does in the original. Hmmm. Does this change my vote? I like the image but it definitely seems digitally manipulated. But why would someone warp her eye like that?? Could be an accident that nobody noticed... Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I think I know. She was probably squinting slightly in her other eye and the Photoshopper decided to stretch it open slightly. You can see that it's slightly softer than the surrounding area which suggests it's been smeared. It's a pretty minor error in the grand scheme of things so I don't think it changes my vote, but it's disappointing that they did such a bad job of it. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Re her left eye/pupil, such may result from trauma to optic nerves – as I can attest due to a nasty bike crash three years ago. Sca (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As per my comments above, I think the eye has been digitally manipulated. I decided to 'Be Bold' and try to reverse what's been done so I'll overwrite both the original and alt with my edit. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've uploaded over the top of both images. It looks reasonably normal to me. Probably not quite as good as if it wasn't messed around with in the first place but meh. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 11:55:47 (UTC)
Original – The interiof of All Saints, Margaret Street in London England, facing east towards the altar
Reason
It's a fascinating interior photo of a notable (and entirely kaleidoscopic!) London church, well captured with good sharpness and detail. I quote from the article: "Simon Thurley, the Chief Executive of English Heritage, listed All Saints as one of the ten most important buildings in the country.".
For those who crave even more detail, I also took this image which is even more detailed (180 megapixels!). I was tempted to make this the main interior image but the angle of view is less wide and the depth of field is not as good so I didn't think it would make such a good image for the article. Still, the detail is quite amazing if your browser can handle the filesize!
Support – Startling. Talk about "high Victorian ostentatiousness [and] obtrusiveness" (from the article). Makes Baroque seem almost austere. Sca (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just reminding you that monkeys in hats is a new FP criterion (in case you forgot and were going to upload more pictures of empty churches). Belle (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another excellent picture... Slightly behind on the monkey conversation, but I'd happily see a version of this with Monkeys in Hats........... gazhiley17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few featureable images of Verdi himsellf (It is HARD to get images of him at bigger than web resolution - unless you count massive upscales). I've recently went through Aida - which was a mess beforehand - and tried to get it down to only images that add a substantial amount of value, appropriately positioned (the other issue with images before - there really was no rhyme or reason to image positioning).
Thank you; I'll add those to my list. The first looks like it'll have many an annoying discussion about crop or don't crop, so I'll probably start on the second. Still think this is a very useful image for showing a side photographs of the time weren't good enough to show. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has a fair bit of EV in the Aida article; I'm hesitant about the Verdi article, as it doesn't really fit anywhere in it with high EV - it's a later performance of Aida, during a time the article (quite rightly) is focusing on his Mass and Otello, major works of the period. But, in Aida, it illustrates the section on other notable 19th century performanes - which it certainly depicts - and thus has much higher EV and illustrative value. It's also the only image of Verdi in that article, increasing the EV furher. I'm certainly not against it being in Giuseppe Verdi, of course, but only if it's appropriate. Adam Cuerden(talk)05:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that it is him conducting it makes it EVey enough. [subliminal: "Monkeys in hats; monkeys in hats"] Belle (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: I'm not sure. It's a little hard to tell when it's converted to printing. It'll be something like that, but it could, for example, be ink with washes, or watercolour. The originals may exist, but it's rare to ever see them. Adam Cuerden(talk)14:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly unsure. It's from a newspaper, so it'll be some sort of engraving, but the standard for this time was woodblock and it's kind of unusual for that, which throws me. Adam Cuerden(talk)15:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this old boy remembers right, the old newspaper 'cuts' were wood blocks topped with a layer of lead alloy. Then they were 'stereotyped' onto curved lead-alloy printing plates for the old rotary (letterpress) presses. Sca (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 00:21:02 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, high EV (presented as a complete set). Prior to the use of banknotes in the British colonies of Demerara and Essequibo, one of the most commonly accepted monetary instruments was the Portuguese gold Johannes coin (c. mid-18th century). Colloquially referred to as Joes, the coins were eventually replaced by banknotes (1809), dually-denominated in Guilders and Joes. There are no reports that any of these early notes still exist. Two issues in the 1830s were prepared but not circulated. These unsigned remainders are the only existing examples of the paper Joe. As an 1830s denomination, the two Joes note is extremely rare and, prior to being discovered in the NNC, the 20 Joe was unknown as denomination.
Support- High quality portrayal of a very rare currency to find in such good condition. Purely for my own enlightenment,why do the 1,10 and 20 Joes appear to have the numbers in what looks like Arabic numbers too? Lemon martini (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lemon martini- Thanks for your interest. The 1, 10, and 20 Joe notes are all from the first issue, the 2 and 3 Joe notes are from the second issue. They all appear to have Arabic numerals... Are you referring to the large D and E (for Demerary and Essequebo) in the upper center of those three notes?--Godot13 (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no-I meant the little boxes in the top right. I see now on a second look that it appears to be 'No.' in the very ornate font,which at first made it look like some sort of Arabic calligraphy,especially with the small dots and circle.That reminds me-I need an eye test soon :) Lemon martini (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Odd background, elaborate jellyfish exploding from his shirt, and he seems to have been made up of the top half of a normal-sized man and the bottom half of a sumo wrestler; what's not to like? Belle (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive-pinpoint clarity.I love the little touches-the yellow lines changing to pink,the notice that 'Troops must break rank whilst crossing the bridge'And very impressively nothing to distract the eye-pavements beautifully clean,not a speck of litter.How on earth did you manage to achieve that?! Lemon martini (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't go around picking up all the litter if that's what you're asking! The hard part was actually capturing it while cars drove across it and caused trouble for me. It's a 5 exposures x 2 rows x 3 columns panorama, and took about 5-10 minutes to shoot, each segment taken in between cars and people walking across the bridge. Because I was actually standing in the right hand turn lane to take the shot (as you can see from the arrow in the foreground), I actually had to get off the road at one point and come back when the car had gone, trying to find exactly the same point to set the tripod up on again. Technically challenging to say the least. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that for a moment; it's CGI (Not complaining; I love CGI; it's better now Ted Danson is in it). Belle (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aesthetically I think it is a lovely picture, but I am uneasy about such heavily faked photos being used for encyclopedic purposes. 109.153.244.21 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I concur with Gaz... Why do you think it's faked? It's not at all. I'm a bit uneasy about anonymous people coming in here and making false accusations about the authenticity of my photography! ;-) If you want to take a ridiculously hard line on it, all photography is 'fake' because it is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and therefore isn't 'reality'. But if you accept that there are limitations to what photography can show, then you should be able to accept that stitching might not absolutely capture a moment in time (it captures multiple moments and combines them seamlessly), but nor does it need to. It's a static object and this is absolutely how it looks from this position. There's nothing fake about it! Ðiliff«»(Talk)09:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to know what exactly you're dealing with when you can't verify any editing history and the accusation is left unexplained. Either way, I'd like to hear why they think it's faked, and to clarify further if necessary. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer explains above that it was stitched together from multiple images taken at different times. In other words, it is not an image of a scene that ever actually existed. That is why I said it is "faked". This is not an egregious example, but because of the wider possibility for more misleading manipulation, I am generally against doctoring of images for Wikiepdia. 109.153.244.21 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an incredibly narrow-minded way of looking at it. The scene as you see it here did actually exist. It's simply that my methodology requires multiple images for a wider angle view and higher resolution. And to set the record straight, was over a period of 5-10 minutes. It's not like I took some photos during the day and some at night and blended them together. The end result is better than a single photo, but it is not less real. In any case, I ask you, why does it matter that the component images were taken at slightly different times? As I said already, it's a static object. It didn't change in any way between the shots, and therefore doesn't misrepresent the bridge. If you're going to argue that it's been 'doctored', you have to be specific about the significance of the doctoring to its encyclopaedic value and how it misrepresents reality. Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fake is a strong word to use for that description. At the most I would go with manipulated, but as Ðiliff has pointed out it's a static object, and each stitch is an actual image not edited, so this is about as accurate as it's going to get. The alternative is a much smaller image, with random cars moving (and most likely blurred due to the length of exposure needed for this level of clarity), and people walking etc - this is a much better image EV wise. Plus many many high quality pictures on this site are stitched, so you are fighting a losing battle here I'm afraid. But thank you for your comment, and feel free to register a username so that you may be able to have your opionion counted as a vote - the more the better... gazhiley09:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IP, it's not really CGI; that was just me pulling Diliff's leg as I think it would have been easier to do with CGI. If it had Bigfoot crossing the bridge you'd have a point though; have you spotted him? Belle (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While not my highest-value score cover - this isn't temporally close to the original performance - this does, however, represent a major revision of the opera that was very influential: the late 1909 hybrid Italian version with translations of German recitatives. Okay, long story short, this is theoretically a grand tragic opera, but Cherubini never wrote the recitatives because the theatre he got to perform it was one of the theatres that did opéra-comique - e.g. operas with dialogue between the numbers; not necessarily with a happy ending. See [2] for more. He then translated it to Italian. In the 19th century, it was restored to a tragédie lyrique - but in a German translation. Then in 1909, the German recitatives were translated to Italian.
Oppose Whole ridge is halo'd sorry - sun just seems to be at an angle that doesn't help with this sort of picture... gazhiley16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how much it really matters, but there is something a bit odd with the colours on her shirt (e.g. look under her left arm). 109.153.244.21 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, although I think the image has been a bit overprocessed. I don't think the reds were blown this bad at the time of the photo (unless the photographer accidentally overexposed and had to darken it in post), I think the blown reds were introduced by editing. Just my suspicion though. Also, it probably doesn't help that the WB is a bit off. There's a definite red tint to the photo, which is probably introduced by the red wall on her left (camera right). Even so, it's fairly easily corrected. Mind if I upload over the top of it to correct it? (nothing I can do about the shirt though) Ðiliff«»(Talk)09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's done. I adjusted the WB of the background, largely excluding her to preserve the colour of the reds on her shirt and skin tones. Also brightened the background by about 0.25EV. Just my personal preference there. Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) Actually, looking at this again, I now think the red shirt overload probably does matter -- enough at least to scupper this one's chances of attaining FP status. 109.153.244.21 (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. It's a good portrait, and I don't think there's much wrong with it. Just the slightly off-putting tones on her shirt makes it hard to give full support. We are notoriously harsh on portraits though. We often reject what would be happily accepted by commercial clients! Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The red suits her and I like the office setting more than the clichéd equation-filled whiteboard, glass and steel corridor or mood-lit laboratory. Belle (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 00:03:41 (UTC)
Original – Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back (1903-4) I think I shall need to get the black out for her dress. Yes. Black. Black. Black! Like the clouds of death that follow me into the Forest of Doom! And hide in the wardrobe of darkness! Black!
Reason
Shows the Danes' hatred of bright colours, the outdoors and faces. Actually this is classic Hammershøi and although the colours are muted and the setting stark it is still light and airy; I like it (which is reason enough for you to support it).
Articles in which this image appears
Just Vilhelm Hammershøi at the mo, but I shall endeavour to do a little snippet on this painting once I'm properly remojofied.
I'm only partially remojofied; not firing on full mojos, but I've started Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back as a stub and I'll expand it before this nomination expires.
I think I might break it if I do that. I named it in Danish as I didn't know (and still don't) what the correct title is in English as there are four or five minor variations. You could learn Danish; it's very useful if you come across any of the seven Danes that don't speak English; or if you know how to move it without breaking it you can put it at "Interior with Young Woman Seen from the Back". Belle (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my oafish non-techie way I tried renaming it here, but evidently there's something I don't understand about the process. Sca (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think between the two of us we've battered it into submission; no doubt some FP veteran will turn up to tell us we've ruined FPC forever and won't be allowed to have a "Save page" button any more, but at least you don't have to learn Danish. Belle (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's quite lovely and also haunting. The next time I'm in mourning (or retiring!) it's going on my page. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But I have spent 10 minutes on trying to find out how to edit this as I came from here. Not all Danes hate bright colours. Just look at their flag and the houses in Nyhavn. In contrast to the Swedes who love white, they are positively chromatic!--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- yes, it's gloomy and uplifting at the same time. I thought from Swedish I could vaguely read Danish, but I learnt today that frokost is lunch not breakfast, and have is garden not sea, no idea why. Maybe Danes like to have lunch in gardens when they aren't standing about in darkened rooms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this one; the composition is a bit strange as there are two whole amplang yet we can only really see three and a bit sides and the lighting mutes the contours. I guess they aren't the most exciting shape and you are trying to add interest by arranging them in an action pose, but they look a little like they are about to mate. Belle (talk)
Indeed, the shape isn't the most attractive in and of itself, and the contours don't have any sharp lines. That may be part of the reason why pages and pages of Google Image Results just show them in bags or on plates. However, I figured it would be best for an infobox picture to show one or two. This allows us to see in detail the shape of the snack itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you break one open? This would give some sense of scale (like the powder in the Tumeric pic) and show off the structure a bit better; and be a novel way of illustrating them (I can't find any images of them broken or crumbled); and make you redo all your hard work; and stop me whining (maybe). Belle (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would rather see them within some sort of context in order to judge the size. Resorting to a scale seems awkward to me. Kaldari (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What could be standardized to measure size? Bowls come in all shapes and sizes. Coins are troublesome (especially since the vast majority of readers will have no reference point for an Indonesian coin). To avoid ambiguity, a scale works best. (Though yes, I must admit that at high resolutions these look almost like small loaves of bread). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 10:53:51 (UTC)
Original – The interior of St Etheldreda's Church, facing the eastern stained glass windows and altar
Reason
It's a simple but beautiful small medieval church dating from the 13th century, and the oldest surviving Catholic church in London. The image itself is high resolution and interesting, showing the dark interior and the stained glass windows well.
Haha, but having been in the crypt, I can tell you it would have made a pretty atmospheric pub! I didn't get a photo though as it was kind of being used as a miscellaneous room and wasn't really very photogenic. Strangely enough, the crypt is actually the entrance to the building. You cross the crypt, go through a door on the far left and then go up the stairs to the actual church. Perhaps the land has been excavated since the church was built. That's the opposite of what seems to have been the case elsewhere in London, where Roman ruins were undiscovered for over a thousand years 5 metres underneath the ground level of existing buildings. Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention kings under parking lots. Sca (talk)
I can arrange the monkey. Once I've cut an outline around him, it's not too difficult to put him in all my churches... deal? :-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I like your cavalier attitude to monkey placement; it doesn't make Wikipedia an inviting place for primate editors. Belle (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2015 at 09:53:09 (UTC)
Original – The Death of Sherlock Holmes (Sidney Paget, 1893) Umpf! Urg! Gerroff! Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty tussling at the Reichenbach Falls (Spoiler: Holmes only pretends to die; he tips the Prof over the edge thanks to his baritsu skills (presumably scalding him with frothy milk) and then skips off for a world tour without a word to Watson)
Reason
Iconic image of detective fiction; the grudge match between The Great Detective and The Napoleon of Crime. I admit this isn't a sure thing for FP because it is actually lower resolution that the image it replaced and has competition from the original pen and ink drawing. However I think having the caption and frame to the plate is important as this is how it was originally presented, and the Paget artwork was only produced to allow the print to be created, so don't make yourself look silly by arguing against it on those points (I'm attempting peer pressure here). The line across the print is because the original artwork was in two pieces.
Is it? There's 2369280 pixels in this image and in a minimum square one (1500x1500) there would be 2250000; so, as I calculate, it has 119280 more pixels than the minimum (it had even more before I cropped the monkey out). Belle (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, our minimum isn't megapixels. It's a fixed length. There are exceptions (that scroll a bit further below is one) but for something that could easily be scanned at a higher resolution such as this, I can't consider it an exception. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Booooooooooooo! Now you've got to go on my enemies list; and you were doing so well today. Can I Withdraw this then? Belle (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An attractive poster showing two out of the three (four, if you prefer the original) key deaths that make up this leg-slapping comedy of an opera. The woman has just been stabbed in the heart by her brother, who she ran to after he was injured. Note: Her brother's a dick.
As with others in this series, this is part of my commemoration of the work on Wikipedia by Viva-Verdi.
Yeah, Gallica has some issues with that occasionally. There's a Falstaff poster I'd snap up in a minute, but for that. However, this one is pretty good. Adam Cuerden(talk)00:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 23:44:06 (UTC)
Original – A set of four lettering guides from 2.5 to 7mm. Such guides have historically been used to standardize letter shapes in technical drawings and to help illiterate people improve their writing.
Reason
Brilliantly encyclopedic shot showing a piece of equipment that a lot of us may have used (at least in elementary school) but is now relatively uncommon.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 02:21:15 (UTC)
Original – Iris Pruysen, an athlete with an artificial leg, competes in the long jump at the 2014 Athletics Paralympic Meeting in Stade Sébastien Charléty, Paris, France.
Reason
Striking illustration, lede image for the article, already featured on Commons
Oppose I think I'm going to be in the minority here judging by the support it got on Commons, but I don't see it as a particular good representation. The pit is reduced to a thin strip and the sharp lines of the runway somewhat blurred by the puddles which takes it out of context a bit; her placement with regard to the jumping line is unclear (I'm not sure if she has taken off or is still approaching); her leg is obscured by her body and her prosthesis blends in, so at first glance at "normal" image size it is unclear what her disability is. Belle (talk)
Comment. Agree with many of the points made above by Belle, and also I have a compositional problem with that distractingly bright orange cone right next to her hand. 81.152.224.92 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think any featured picture for this sort of HDR shot would have to be part of a set showing either the images used to make it up or a "normal" shot for comparison. Like this it looks just like a slightly blurry lamp. (The image has been removed from High-dynamic-range imaging btw). Belle (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. In order to have encyclopedic value for an HDR shot, it should show the individual images and the composite for comparison. Looking at this lamp we don't know what makes it an HDR shot. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 19:24:37 (UTC)
Original – A four year old cute girl performing Odissi
Reason
We have already an FP in this particular article but still a four year old girl performing this classical dance form which really need number of years experience forced me to create this nomination. Still it doesn't add more scope to its EV but good quality and one of the finest pose.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 19:34:13 (UTC)
Hidden at the request of those who prefer not to see horrific injuries for two weeks straight. Click to show.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Original – White phosphorus burns on 13-year-old Ayman al Najar.
Reason
Stumbled across this while trying to remember the name of the luminescent substance used in the 19th century that was actually horribly dangerous. It's.... compelling, and horrible. VERY horrible. Sometimes, a shocking image is more valuable than a thousand words at communicating an idea. This is a vicerally horrible image, but shows the horror of the weapon better than any description would. I've used an undersized thumbnail as I think people should see the image, but maybe not every time they visit the FP page for two weeks.
Comment - How can I support or oppose without seeing the photograph ? I seriously don feel to see. Is it possible to hide the picture ? DreamSparrowChat20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mydreamsparrow: I hate hiding images, as I think it vastly increases a chance of a nomination not reaching quorum. (To be clear, I do definitely think this would be fine for the main page, but there's a difference between one day on a landing page and two weeks on one where people are actively working. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, Thanks for hiding. Excuse for this time because it is seriously effective. I couldn't see to it for a second time. I will surely be avoiding the main page on that particular day. DreamSparrowChat21:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MMMMM! This is horrifying! I would still Support this mainly on the grounds on how rare it might be to get a photo like this. Though I would like to ask if there are any other images on the chopping block soon, like one on a napalm victim. GamerPro6400:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not convinced about the composition, here. Imagine this was a less shocking image of a similar subject (say, of a kind of tattoo, or of a non-invasive medical procedure)- would we support? I don't think I would. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: Counter argument to that is we can afford to be picky about tattoo photos, as tattoos are easy to find and get. This image also has rarity: there's not going to be white phosphorus burns except as act of war. Adam Cuerden(talk)16:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but rarity concerns cannot be overriding- we have to balance them with other questions. I think reasonable people will balance them differently; there's a judgement call to be made. (And I said "a particular kind of tattoo" because I was thinking of, for example, a cultural/religious practice of a small non-western group, plausibly also something that'd be rare/unusual for our purposes.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it has plenty of encyclopedia value I don't think it is a very good picture. I think that a featured picture needs to be more than encyclopedic, it also needs to be a good picture. While this is a difficult subject to get a photo of, sadly I don't think that another will not be taken. Chillum17:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
High quality image, high EV. Commissioned by the Cuban government in 1915–16, the US Mint struck gold pesos. Design by Charles E. Barber and struck at the Philadelphia Mint.
Hi Eurovisionman2015 and welcome to Featured Pictures. In order to vote at FPC an editor must have been a member for at least 25 days and have at least 100 edits. In the meantime, you are welcome to leave comments if you wish. Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 01:54:47 (UTC)
Original – Tectarius coronatus is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Littorinidae, which is found in the Philippines and Sulawesi. Its shell measures between 20 - 40 mm
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 11:16:38 (UTC)
Original – The vault of the Santa Maria della Vittoria shows, amongst other things, a fresco of The Virgin Mary Triumphing over Heresy, appropriately enough for a church whose name translates (idiomatically) as Our Lady of Victory.
Reason
The extensive, detailed 3D nature of the ceiling, combined with minimal distortion makes for a fantastic image.
@Crisco 1492: I think it gains a fair bit of EV from its strong connection to the church's patron saint and - what's the term for the specific descriptions of the saint? Aspect?. Adam Cuerden(talk)00:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Chris Woodrich - I agree with the EV issue. It's only really mentioned once by name, let alone explained what you are looking at... Lovely picture, with excellent clarity though... gazhiley11:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has the same problem as the egg fruit picture further down the page: no sense of scale; the plum could be the size of a cherry or the size of my head (those are different sizes, although I appreciate without a picture and some sense of scale you can't tell I don't have a cherry-sized head). Belle (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Would be better without the background removed. In most fruit pictures we have a white background, but not a cut-out like this. It looks very weird to me. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 22:20:00 (UTC)
Original – A portrait of the burlesque dancer, Faith Bacon
Reason
A vintage portrait of Faith Bacon, who was one of the most famous burlesque dancers during her time. During the height of her career, she was billed as "America's Most Beautiful Dancer", and I think this picture shows why.
That's not how the image size requirement works. It is available at higher resolution (as this person selling it [4] has a higher resolution image); finding it is the challenge; typing "faith bacon" into Google images doesn't work and that is the limit of my image finding skills. Belle (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Belle I tried looking, but could not find a version of a higher resolution. In the Featured picture criteria it says exceptions can be made to the size requirement. So could this picture qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbow unicorn (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 23:55:04 (UTC)
Original – A 1783 portrait of Maria I of Portugal. First known as Maria the Pious, then Maria the Mad, she was Queen of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves, though in the last years of her life the governance was handled by others, including her son John. Maria fled to Brazil during the Napoleonic wars, and remained there after Napoleon's defeat. This portrait dates to a few years before her mental disease was noticed.
Reason
Very good scan. Useful as the lead image in her article.
Support – interesting portrait; the article could be better but provides more than sufficient EV. Looks like it could be a fun article to work on, if only there were more hours in the day. SagaciousPhil - Chat10:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By far the best of the images of modern performances of Aida, and, indeed, amongst the best photographs of theatre in progress we have. I'm pretty sure this is the scene with Amneris in Act IV, with the trial of Radames happening offstage. It's the only image of a modern production in the article, and provides high illustrative value thereby. I could see criticism for this production not being explicitly mentioned, but that's... pretty much standard for modern theatre production photos of older works, particularly ones performed as often as Aida. It's also in Israeli Opera, though, admittedly, for... about five minutes as I write this.
The shadow in the large size seems unnaturally blue (not so much in the smaller sizes); is that some problem with my monitor or my eyes or my visual cortex? Belle (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this really in the public domain? The set design is obviously original artwork designed for non-permanent display, and there's no evidence in the record at Commons that the necessary permissions were granted by The Israel Opera. The source of the image might clarify this, but its in Hebrew. I'd also note that the top of the head of the sculpture is cut off by the crop. Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is it actually justified? Whoever took the photo can't release images of the set design into the public domain given that they're not the copyright holder of the set design. Google Translating the page [5] indicates that the details there are only about who took the photo. It appears that the photo may have been taken from this Flickr stream, which appears to be that of an skilled amateur photographer who takes them from the audience. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (ec) I remember hearing that "permanent" meant "for the life of the artwork". If the performance stayed in that one venue, then all staging equipment was subsequently destroyed, that would qualify. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Oh what the heck. I've been feeling neutral for the past while, since I know we've got plans for the Aida article, but this is a good quality shot of the stage, and I doubt we'll be getting another photograph of a performance at FPC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 13:18:47 (UTC)
Original – Crimean War: Florence Nightingale with her lamp at a patient's bedside. Coloured lithograph after H. Rae.
Reason
A Hi-Res of lithograph Florence Nightingale, shown here in an interpretation of one her many roles - in this specific case, her making the rounds with a lamp at night to check up on the sick and injured, which earned her the nickname "the lady with the lamp." Her lasting legacy would be most felt in World War I, when Red Cross personnel would attempt to emulate her style of care when treating the military casualties.
This isn't painted, but thick layers of ink can crack. In any case,they should be edited out. With ephemera, mass-produced, we should be giving the best possible view of the ephemera. Adam Cuerden(talk)14:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty (though you could tell me that valley was anywhere and I'd believe you; Germany, US, Bolivia, the Moon; maybe not the Moon, but the others for sure). Belle (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Missed the birdy's head at first glance, but I'm a bit tipsy and, aside from the difficult-for-me-to-spot head, it is a lovely composition with the wing feathers splayed out and the bluff in the background. Belle (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 00:02:00 (UTC)
Original – A portrait of Midshipman Augustus Brine, age 13, in 1782. At this time he served on HMS Belliqueux, his father's ship; he was made a rear-admiral in 1837, three years before his death.
Reason
High quality scan of an interesting painting. Augustus Brine, a Royal Navy Officer, is seen here as a midshipman in 1782, when he was but 13.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 09:29:26 (UTC)
Original – The Lion of Al-lāt was an ancient statue of a lion with a crouching gazelle which adorned the temple of pre-Islamic goddess Al-lāt in Palmyra, Syria. Made from limestone in the 1st century AD, the statue measured 3.5 m in height and weighed 15 tonnes. On 27 June 2015 the statue was demolished by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Reason
This monument has been recently demolished by ISIL, but I think we got a decent freely licensed photo before demolition, especially since it cannot be retaken. A bitter irony is that the statue had an inscription "Al-lāt will bless whoever will not shed blood in the sanctuary", symbolizing everything ISIL is not.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 18:40:04 (UTC)
Original – NGC 1427A, appearing here to be glitter in space, is an irregular galaxy. It is "passing through the Fornax cluster at nearly 600 kilometers per second" and is approximately 51.9 million light years from Earth.
Reason
Encyclopedic illustration of an irregular galaxy, and is the lede image for two articles.
Support Nice picture showing her in action, without capturing her with a wierd face as often happens when photographing singers. gazhiley09:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It isn't perfect (low res, crop a bit tight, and a bit noisy), but the composition makes up for it. Nice capture. Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunate shadows on chins seem to be an occupational hazard for singers. I do find this one rather offputting; it looks like she has a huge skin blemish. 81.152.224.92 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 02:17:12 (UTC)
Reason
High quality, high EV (presented as a complete set). The first (provisional) issue of paper currency in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (March 1939) was an unissued 1938 Republic of Czechoslovakia 1 koruna note originally intended for the Czech army. During the beginning of the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, an oval stamp was applied to the unissued 1938 stock of notes, identifying the currency as valid in the Protectorate. Overprint reads: Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren, Protektorat Cechy a Morava. By the 1940 issue, the notes had been customized as Protectorate currency and the stamp was no longer needed. NOTE: The 1 koruna note from 1939 is already featured individually and would simply become part of the set (it would not be featured a second time).
Support – Historical EV, as usual. Odd that in the beginning the Nazis would have overprinted notes from the (by them) reviled Czech Republic. Sca (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I presume the notes varied slightly in size, and not in resolution of scanning? Might be losing that in this; you might want to start listing dpi or sizes on the image descriptions. Not enough of an issue to oppose, though, so Support. Adam Cuerden(talk)17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adam - Understood. I will try to list note sizes in the relevant article tables when available. All banknote scans are at 800dpi unless otherwise noted, some are downsized slightly.--Godot13 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the American milk carton style missing children images on the 10 and 20 Korun notes. Do you know the whereabouts of Hansel or Gretel? Last seen in the dark forest. Belle (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 13:30:10 (UTC)
Original – The Hegassen scroll, a Japanese Japanese art scroll created during the Edo period by an unknown artist or several unknown artists. "A set of 12 "He-gassen" prints sold for over $1,500 at Christie's Auction House in the 1990s."
Support I came to tell you boys to grow up but, although I'm not sure the EV is as strong as it could be, I've been won over by flatulence. One thing ruins it though: poor kitty gets it; tree gets blown down; panels get smashed; rider gets unseated; meals get ruined; but not one monkey gets its hat blown off! Unknown artist of the Edo period, I am disappoint. Belle (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shell choose to disregard this comment so as not to rise to the provocation... Unless it was just a friendly yolk...gazhiley16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My question is — Is she frying, poaching or basting? Target article says, "The boiling pan is particularly well-captured, with its spitting oil.... (My emphasis.) Bing translates the Spanish title's verb merely as cooking. Sca (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frying; Bing is wrong. Freir is to fry; cocinar to cook (other languages and cooking methods available on request). Belle (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's that lovely Spanish frying method which is a cross between shallow and deep frying; it makes everything yummy and calorific (full of calories not heat). Belle (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't like the caption (if it is going to play any future part). Saying "This genre painting" makes it look as if there are others. Change to "The genre painting" or simply reword: ...is a genre painting in oils on canvas by Diego Velázquez. Depicting an old woman frying eggs, it is held at the Scottish National Gallery. I also wonder how many more works from the Google art project will be displayed on the front page. The images are good but so are many outside the Google field of competence.--Ipigott (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main page caption (which, considering the average queue time, we won't have to worry about until early 2017) will not be the same as the caption here. The caption here is just for FPC !voters, so that they know what the image they are reviewing is. As for the Google question: we've actually got FPs from a wide variety of sources. Among the more commons sources are the National Gallery in London, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, and the Prado in Madrid. I'm always on the lookout for museum web pages hosting high resolution files. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2015 at 06:27:46 (UTC)
Original – Ambroise Thomas, c. 1895, wearing his Légion d'honneur medals
Reason
A fine image of a fairly important Romantic-era composer. Colours are a little odd, but appear to be the original, so I didn't touch them. I did lighten the border outside the card a little bit, but haven't tweaked colours beyond that.
Excellent point! Thanks! I had presumed the BNF dates were as accurate as possible, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given some of the documentation there. Adam Cuerden(talk)11:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2015 at 23:47:05 (UTC)
Original – Kushari is an Egyptian dish made of rice, macaroni and lentils mixed together, topped with a tomato-vinegar sauce, short pieces of spaghetti garnished with chickpeas and crispy fried onions. It dates back to the 19th century.
Reason
Nice image of an Egyptian dish that a lot of us may have never seen before. I'm interested in trying it ;)
Support. Very nicely done photograph, but I wonder if someone could identify the various ingredients in little bowls? Clockwise from top left, I'm guessing lentils, chickpeas, onions, hot sauce, tomato/vinegar, onions again? Is that correct? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the photographer has left Commons, so I don't think she'd be easy to contact. Your order appears correct to me, but I can't be sure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom left dish (the entirely red one) looks like Sweet Chilli to me - the red chilli pieces and white chilli seeds stand out - I use this sauce almost daily in my cooking so looks very familiar to me. gazhiley09:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sca (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_by_night.JPG)
Sca (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Crop.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(1830s).jpg)
(1830s).jpg)
(1830s).jpg)
(1830s).jpg)
(1830s).jpg)
.jpg)
_Alborzagros.JPG)
.jpg)
_-_Google_Cultural_Institute.jpg)
.jpg)
1 Koruna ND(1939)
5 Korun ND(1939)
1 Koruna ND(1940)ND.jpg)
ND.jpg)
ND.jpg)
5 Korun ND(1940)
50 Korun (1940)
100 Korun (1940)ND.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
10 Korun (1942)
20 Korun (1944)
50 Korun (1944).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Original.jpg){kind=link}
_Alborzagros.JPG){kind=link}
_Alborzagros.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Privat-Livemont-Absinthe_Robette-1896.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
