Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2016
| Featured picture tools |
|---|
Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 01:14:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very good quality, high EV both for the individual and his findings
- Articles in which this image appears
- Alphonse Bertillon, Anthropological criminology
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
- Creator
- Alphonse Bertillon
- Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating: Inventor using his invention on himself... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Neat, but why such a strange crop of this image as the lead in Alphonse Bertillon? Mattximus (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask the editor who added it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the life of me I don't know... Thanks for correcting it.--Godot13 (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask the editor who added it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Janke. Test drive on himself...-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - EV, and it's just way too cool...--Godot13 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, cool indeed - I first read about him and his system in 1970, in the fascinating book Das Jahrhudert der Detektive by Jürgen Thorwald, strongly recommended if you can find it (or a translation - I read it in Swedish.) --Janke | Talk 09:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Bertillon, Alphonse, fiche anthropométrique recto-verso.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 16:45:26 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Giving this a try after some consideration. Has extra EV as the photo was taken when her solo circumnavigation was in progress (in 2011). Perhaps no one imagined that the youngest braveheart to make such an endeavor would be a girl.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Laura Dekker
- FP category for this image
- People/Sport
- Creator
- Savyasachi
- Support as nominator – Brandmeistertalk 16:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly when "in progress." Photo info (Eng. & Dutch) says she was speaking at the HISWA boat show in Amsterdam – hence the clutter in the background – and that her tour would resume after the show when she would be flown back to her sailboat Guppy. Sca (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I mean it happened after she had sailed from Gibraltar and before the sailing was completed. The photo is from 3 March 2011, so chronologically it's that period. Brandmeistertalk 16:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, understand that. My concern was the cluttery background, since obviously if pic. had been taken literally while the voyage was under way (which is what "in progress" implies) that couldn't have been there. Sca (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I mean it happened after she had sailed from Gibraltar and before the sailing was completed. The photo is from 3 March 2011, so chronologically it's that period. Brandmeistertalk 16:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly when "in progress." Photo info (Eng. & Dutch) says she was speaking at the HISWA boat show in Amsterdam – hence the clutter in the background – and that her tour would resume after the show when she would be flown back to her sailboat Guppy. Sca (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support All that aside, this appears to be a high-quality shot of a remarkable young woman in the midst of the thing that made her remarkable. High EV, [more than] adequate pixelage/ clarity/ photographic performance, freely licensed, all the flags say, "Go!" KDS4444Talk 05:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Agree with KDS4444 re illustrative value for the subject person – who appears to be a very pleasant young woman in the bloom of health. Sca (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Pose is sub-par, I think. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Aw, Chris, really?? I think the pose is just fine! I find it sincere and spontaneous without being awkward— meanwhile the images from her website here are posed shots which lack this quality, the YachtingWorld image here lacks the poignant depth of field that I really like in this image, the image here doesn't show her centered in the frame, and THIS image has a ridiculous pose! Meanwhile this image, which I think is brilliant and is obviously very professional, isn't being offered up as an FP candidate— but I think our candidate falls into the same quality class as that shot. You can't argue it isn't big enough (it is more than twice the minimum requirement in both width and height) or that it is over/ under exposed, over/ under saturated, visibly retouched, or misrepresentative of its subject, you must admit that it shows her in a nautically-themes setting which is exactly the one most suitable for her notoriety. We can agree to disagree, but I think this is a great shot of her and would be suitable for use in any glossy magazine and better than most anything you will find elsewhere on the Internet. KDS4444Talk 10:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- To expand on the issue I take with this: her body is leaning to the viewer's left, whereas her head is looking to the viewer's right. This causes unnecessary tension. I've also got a problem with the bright, busy background and her face being in the shadows. Although the background isn't overly blown (not as bad as some I've seen... or taken) it still detracts from the image. Though these are of different subjects, File:Dustin Brown 14, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg and File:Katie Swan 3, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg are both candid and work better as images. For posed images, I'm particularly fond of File:SkudinaEkaterina5.jpg, where the subject's sport is implied without taking the focus off her. This isn't a bad shot, but I don't think it's up to FP quality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's a fine candid shot. Photog caught her with a natural expression that seems to embody a bit of amusement or a good sense of humor. Sca (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly.
And while that File:SkudinaEkaterina5.jpg is rightfully featured, it's a posed shot, unlike this one.Natural facial expressions and postures are almost always good in FP terms, methinks. Brandmeistertalk 14:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)- Only negative aspect is the background, which can be overlooked in this case, since it's blurry. Sca (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention that File:SkudinaEkaterina5.jpg was posed, above, as you had mentioned some posed images of Dekker. Still can't say I get behind this image, sorry. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Only negative aspect is the background, which can be overlooked in this case, since it's blurry. Sca (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly.
- It's a fine candid shot. Photog caught her with a natural expression that seems to embody a bit of amusement or a good sense of humor. Sca (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Aw, Chris, really?? I think the pose is just fine! I find it sincere and spontaneous without being awkward— meanwhile the images from her website here are posed shots which lack this quality, the YachtingWorld image here lacks the poignant depth of field that I really like in this image, the image here doesn't show her centered in the frame, and THIS image has a ridiculous pose! Meanwhile this image, which I think is brilliant and is obviously very professional, isn't being offered up as an FP candidate— but I think our candidate falls into the same quality class as that shot. You can't argue it isn't big enough (it is more than twice the minimum requirement in both width and height) or that it is over/ under exposed, over/ under saturated, visibly retouched, or misrepresentative of its subject, you must admit that it shows her in a nautically-themes setting which is exactly the one most suitable for her notoriety. We can agree to disagree, but I think this is a great shot of her and would be suitable for use in any glossy magazine and better than most anything you will find elsewhere on the Internet. KDS4444Talk 10:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Negatives are distracting background and pose that makes it look as if she was caught unawares. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- as if she was caught unawares
- – aka a candid shot. Sca (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not really. It looks as if she has just become aware of the camera and is about to turn to look at it, or is trying to pose for the camera but has momentarily been distracted, but either way the result is a bit awkward. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Chris. The pose is awkward, body facing viewers left, head going right. It may be a candid shot, but there is no reason for this picture to be a candid shot. Mattximus (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, as per Sca. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support as per Sca – Jobas (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Laura Dekker (cropped).jpg --SSTflyer 17:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 19:11:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Freely licensed, accurate, and visually interesting image
- Articles in which this image appears
- Limpet, Patellogastropoda
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- KDS4444
- Support as nominator – This one has been in the hopper for three years now, am finally more or less satisfied with it, please provide suggestions for improvements or point out errors, thanks!KDS4444Talk 19:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - It looks like you are trying to say that the aorta, ventricle and the atrium are part of the pericardium, which does not seem accurate. Also is auricle the correct term? I thought that was outdated, but I'm not sure about this particular species. Mattximus (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good question. I am trying to say that the pericardium is a sack containing the auricle, ventricle, and aorta, as described here. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, this is still the accepted arrangement for these parts (though if you know differently then please tell me so I can correct the drawing). Also: I am finding the word "auricle" used in this text, which is pretty recent (Bulletin 38 is a Japanese publication well known for its coverage of the mollusca). The original work on which I based my information and terms is rather old, but as far as I know, it isn't considered flawed and its terms remain mostly current (though I did use "digestive gland" rather than "hepatopancreatic gland", which was the now-obsolete term given in the text, see above link re: the pericardium for said text). KDS4444Talk 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, assuming KD's image is accurate. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you wouldn't expect anything less of me! There is a fantastic Flickr photo album of a closely-related species, Patella ulyssiponensis, available here, which was only published in December of last year (long after I first tried to draw this limpet, but an invaluable resource for me as I tried to bring it up to FP quality). I have taken a certain amount of artistic/ creative license with regard to color and texture, but the placement of the organs is mathematically precise (save the shell and mantle, which I have excluded for obvious reasons). KDS4444Talk 10:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The positioning of the labels is a bit messy. Sometimes there is a large gap between the label and the line, sometimes a small gap, apparently at random. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hm. You are right, and it is not random: it is an artifact of the way that Adobe Illustrator generates SVG files, and subsequently of the ways that different browsers interpret the resulting code. It is a problem I struggle with every time I try to generate an SVG diagram using Illustrator (which is a great program with some annoying flaws). I have already been looking into this, and will be posting a revised image post haste with this labeling issue (hopefully) fixed. KDS4444Talk 10:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway! KDS4444Talk 06:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2015 at 13:18:36 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good scan, interesting theme. The painting is by the Italian Renaissance painter Filippino Lippi, depicting Tobias and the Angel, rom c. 1475-1480. The painting is in the the National Gallery of Art of Washington, DC, where Crisco took it to give everybody a nice Christmas mood, angels and happy end and all that...
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tobias and the Angel (Filippino Lippi) (own article), Tobias and the Angel, List of painters and architects of Venice
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Filippino Lippi
- Support as co-nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator – Hafspajen (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - sst✈(discuss) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – DreamSparrow Chat 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
SupportSupport Alt16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC) - Atsme📞📧 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)- Support I support the second imageCharlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment While it looks perfectly fine, I note that file is less than half the size of the download of the same resolution in the stated source [1]. This suggests re-compression and, while subtle, I think the current version is inferior to the source version because of it. Also it appears the zoomable image viewer version in source is of significantly greater resolution and detail than either [2]. – Wolftick (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have stitched together a substantially higher resolution and more detailed version from the image viewer on source. I'm fairly new to this: Assuming this is okay, should I upload as a new version of the file or post it as an alt? Wolftick (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the caution- I'm sure we all appreciate it! It would be valuable if you could post this as an alt so that the alternatives can be compared side-by-side. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Alt uploaded and posted - Wolftick (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the caution- I'm sure we all appreciate it! It would be valuable if you could post this as an alt so that the alternatives can be compared side-by-side. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have stitched together a substantially higher resolution and more detailed version from the image viewer on source. I'm fairly new to this: Assuming this is okay, should I upload as a new version of the file or post it as an alt? Wolftick (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Wolfie. Wonder though, if the original doesn't got the right colors, though. The work is rather tiny, it is 33 × 23 cm (13 × 9.1 in) - so the resolution of the original scan might be just enough...(2,123 × 3,000 pixels, file size: 4.04 MB) -- [thinking about and because of the colour question]... Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- People have a tendency to just crank up the saturation and contrast on artworks, reality be damned. We know this, although given Crisco's the one uploading, perhaps they just restored it recently by removing a varnish layer. In any case, we should go with the more recent scan by the gallery. Oppose original. Will need to check the alt over for stitching errors. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - One can't do this kind of changes by removing the varnish. And all scans are not good. Hafspajen (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's impossible to tell for sure without seeing in person but alt feels right to me, in the same way original felt wrong. I think the yellows are the main tell-tale.
- With regards to resolution, as long as it reveals more detail my inclination is to go with as much as available in preference to minimising file size. Not sure if people follow? In this case alt is approximately 600PPI which doesn't feel over the top for this work.
- The stitching was a simple case of manually aligning per pixel 3 parts split vertically (top, middle and bottom sections), but I would agree that checking would be good in case I made any errors. - Wolftick (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version). I'm currently uploading the newest downloadable version they have. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom. An interesting rendition of wings and a halo.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Either image is acceptable in my opinion. Editors have this problem all the time selecting images. So long as the images are technically proficient and not gratuitously processed to the uploader's taste or prejudices, there shouldn't be a problem. There was a problem with the accompanying article however, which was a blatant copyright violation of NGA text. That material needs to be rewritten by our esteemed commentators here. 64.9.157.242 (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I could support either version, too. The question is which one comes closer to the original painting. Can this be decided? --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment support either, however if I were to use one in an article, I would use the 1st. Atsme📞📧 13:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Support either per Tremonist.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Confirming my vote above: I think ALT is better. Yann (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Prefer original - It doesn't have any stitching errors, and since the museum is releasing it for download, it's probably reasonably accurate.. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I understand if the original is preferred but unless examples can be cited I would assert that there are no stitching errors with the second image. While it was stitched together this was achieved using only 3 overlapping parts of the original whole and thus could be performed manually with per pixel accuracy. - Wolftick (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, left out the word "possible". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- 'Support original - For all the NGA scans here and there - Renaissance paintings and especially Filippino Lippi - ALL of his paintings have CLEAR; LUMINOUS colours. Original is most probably right. Hafspajen (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I would contend that while less sharp and contrasty in thumbnail the colours in alt are clearer and more luminous in alt. Note in comparison the rosey cheeks and distinction in colour between the face and hair that are present in alt but sadly absent in the original, along with the blue sky that is actually blue rather than grey, the richer green... I could go on. - Wolftick (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Hafspajen and Crisco 1492: The ALT appears to be the scan from the NGA. Where has the original come from? You're stating it's accurate because the original is the one the museum released; that doesn't appear to be true. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The NGA has both scans available. The one available for download (i.e. the one here) is the one used in the Original above. I've stated this already, above ("I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version).") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- That is just weird. I think, then, we can probably make this supposition: The image has been restored, and the original is before the removal of yellowed varnish? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Quite possible. Or there was a different white balance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If it's simply different white balance, I'd say the original is clearly wrong. It has an oversaturated, overcontrasted effect similar to hitting the "Autolevels" button. That's only acceptable if it reflects reality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: Actually, there's a point. You have photoshop, right? Do an autolevels on the alt, and tell me if it comes out like the original? If its basically a bad automated adjustment, we should reject it, and some futzing with autolevels and contrast in GIMP hints it may just be that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Auto tone ends up really blue, actually. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, so both are still in the running. That's good to know, at least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Auto tone ends up really blue, actually. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: Actually, there's a point. You have photoshop, right? Do an autolevels on the alt, and tell me if it comes out like the original? If its basically a bad automated adjustment, we should reject it, and some futzing with autolevels and contrast in GIMP hints it may just be that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- If it's simply different white balance, I'd say the original is clearly wrong. It has an oversaturated, overcontrasted effect similar to hitting the "Autolevels" button. That's only acceptable if it reflects reality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Quite possible. Or there was a different white balance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- That is just weird. I think, then, we can probably make this supposition: The image has been restored, and the original is before the removal of yellowed varnish? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The NGA has both scans available. The one available for download (i.e. the one here) is the one used in the Original above. I've stated this already, above ("I can confirm that the NatGal scan is very yellow (in the downloadable version).") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - In an attempt to resolve stalemate, I note that Original is now marked as superseded by Alt on Wikipedia. Original is not currently used in any articles and this change has not been reverted for some time (as uploader of Alt I did not make this change). According to FPC criteria this renders original ineligible for FP and as it stands it now becomes a sole question of whether Alt has enough support. - Wolftick (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Also while it's fairly clear from above, I should say that now I am eligible to vote I Support Alt - Wolftick (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- ...That is if I am not considered ineligible per "New votes will no longer be accepted." - Wolftick (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This has gone on a month. Only the alt is used in articles, and its usage seems to be stable in them, given it's been a month. Can I suggest we simply promote the alt? Otherwise, I think this has to be failed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- ...I just noticed: I made the change. I had forgotten I did that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- still Prefer Original : Per Chris Woodrich & Hafspajen : DreamSparrow Chat 16:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Original is now not used in any articles so cannot be promoted as things stand. Alt is now the version used in articles and by my count just about has the necessary 5 supports if you count slightly tenuous "support either" votes. If things remain like this I would suggest either promote alt or not promoted per didn't reach the necessary quorum. Don't mind which but I think it would be good to clear this up. - Wolftick (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Support alt as it is used in articles and meets requirements. sst✈ 11:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- All right, I am taking this. Let's see. In order to gain a perfect consensus, we need more clarity on the votes. So pinging @Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, SSTflyer, Yann, and Mydreamsparrow:@Jobas, Atsme, Charlesjsharp, Wolftick, and Adam Cuerden:@Godsy: Can you please make a more full fledged support on either. (One year away and found you guys have messed up my FPC. What a mess. An nom uncooked for three months. Oh Christ...;-)...) -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 16:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, support either. Tendency seems to be towards the alt, so let's go with that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I differentiated my vote and dated it. Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧 16:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I support the alt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support ALT ---Yann (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tobias and the Angel - Filippino Lippi.jpg ---The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- 9 support alt, hence it gets the star... -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 04:02:53 (UTC)
,_p3.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality ad for one of Roekiah's last films. The magazine this was in was (fortunately) in very good condition - albeit a bit pricey - and what little damage there was has been restored.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Poesaka Terpendam
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- Tan's Film, restored by — Chris Woodrich (talk)
- Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Btw, Roekiah article doesn't mention this Roekia spelling on the poster (without "h"). Perhaps should be added. Brandmeistertalk 15:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note added (true story: there are at least four spellings used for Sorga Ka Toedjoe, and even the novelization isn't consistent as to which one it wants to use...) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Looks great to me, good EV. Mattximus (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Godot13 (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Poesaka Terpendam ad, Poestaka Timoer 66 (15 Oct 1941), p3.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 17:44:01 (UTC)
- Reason
- A nice EV pic depicting a fine art subject. Just stumbled on it, but caught attention at once.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Polynesia
- FP category for this image
- May be landscapes(?)
- Creator
- Anonymous, preserved in US Library of Congress
- Support as nominator – -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – Indistinct and inky. Sca (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose far too blurry to be featured. Also, I don't know about the encyclopedic value of showing the bright colourful tropics in black and white... Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: Where cultural traditions have changed, a historical image in black and white is going to win out over a colour one that's less authentic, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2016 at 03:58:09 (UTC)
- Reason
- An excellent image, replacing the complete lack of any image of him we had before.
- Articles in which this image appears
- William H. Crook
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Frances Benjamin Johnston; restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Seems a bit soft, but definitely acceptable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- [Forgot to transclude: Not quite sure how Chris found it, but, eh...] Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Extendable ears. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice restoration. Mattximus (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:William H. Crook photographed by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2016 at 18:37:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- A more recent take on this. High EV, with both powder and sticks, as well as dried flowers.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cinnamon, Cinnamomum verum
- FP category for this image
- Food and drink
- Creator
- LivingShadow
- Support as nominator – Brandmeistertalk 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)- Sorry, Adam, but you can only !vote once.
Armbrust The Homunculus 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, Adam, but you can only !vote once.
- Support Very sharp for a macro, and very well-composed. The pure white is very good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I thought this was cinnamon and not salsa. No double dipping! ;) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Part of me wants to say "shadow needs more feathering", but this is already miles above a lot of the macro product photography we see here. Very nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think the fact that it has a shadow at all is good. I don't like those pictures of objects apparently hanging in space, with a background of featureless white. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. The edges of the shadow, however, could use a bit more work. But this is already good enough for FP status in my book, especially since the food category is underpopulated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think the fact that it has a shadow at all is good. I don't like those pictures of objects apparently hanging in space, with a background of featureless white. 86.171.43.82 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic photo, however, this should be the lead image in Cinnamon Mattximus (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, meets criteria. SSTflyer 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support; a beautiful, high-quality image. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support. Very valuable. I've moved it to the article's lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The edges of the grey halo (not really a shadow) definitely need to be fixed (at least smoothed out some). Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Support- Image shows very fine details and is in good quality - QuotidianPaperclip (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- Vote struck per comment above.--Godot13 (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Cinnamomum verum spices.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 13:42:11 (UTC)
- Reason
- Already FP on commons, 2nd place in WLM 2013 US, high EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mount Vernon
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Martin Falbisoner
- Support as nominator – Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too much sky. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Although the composition may be aesthetically pleasing, distance to subject, excessive sky and dominating tree reduce EV to nil. Sca (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose passes as FP on Commons due to its quality, but the EV is low. SSTflyer 01:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Request withdrawn ok guys, I got the point and I'll withdraw the picture. This was my first active nomination here (as my primary playground is Commons). I guess I just didn't really understand the concept of EV as defined here on wp. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)- @Martin Falbisoner, check out Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture for an idea of what has generally fit the bill here on En-WIki. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --SSTflyer 07:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator. SSTflyer 07:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2016 at 07:09:44 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Ran into this at Commons. It's a FP there. Thought it may merit the same assessment here. Quality is good. There's the dark clouds, but much can't be done about that. On that note, there's a couple other similar photographs from the same photographer here: Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral, Yerevan#Gallery. If any of you spot a picture that's better than this one, feel free to let me know, or you could just nominate it yourself.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral, Yerevan, Armenian Apostolic Church
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Halavar
- Support as nominator – Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support per previous nom. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Unusual architecture. Support mainly on rarity, despite clouds, TV tower. Sca (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support high quality and EV. SSTflyer 03:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2016 at 19:51:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- Excellent depiction of the characteristic urban patterns of Bath, Somerset. It shows the characteristic topography and how the repetitive terraced houses were adapted to it. Good lighting and great level of detail.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bath, Somerset
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- Diliff
- Support as nominator – ELEKHHT 19:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose- The lighting in the central portion of the picture is a bit too harsh and unbalanced -QuotidianPaperclip (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- Support - Disagree with the above oppose (which I've struck given the editor has not been registered for 25 days nor had 100 edits. If I'm incorrect, please let me know).--Godot13 (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Support- A lovely photo of the houses showing the extent of Georgian Bath. Jane Austen had a not inconsiderable affection for the city, and her book Northanger Abbey was set in the city, amongst and inside these very houses. One thoroughfare that is often referred to in the book is Great Pulteney Street, which is visible in this photo. IHaveWikipediaNow! (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)- Strike !vote, as user isn't eligible to do that. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Go go go....-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Bathwick Hill, Bath, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 02:23:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- So this has received an overwhelming amount of support to become a FP on Commons. Deservedly so. It's a wonderful combination of the majestic biblical mountain, along with the city of Yerevan that rests under its shadow. Overall, EV is great and the quality is good.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Mount Ararat, Yerevan
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- Սէրուժ
- Is there an English equivalent for Սէրուժ – ? Sca (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Serouj --Երևանցի talk 12:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is there an English equivalent for Սէրուժ – ? Sca (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support as nominator – Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Good detail, impressive backdrop. Sca (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Nice detail and visually appealing, but the top feels too tight over the taller peak.--Godot13 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Though agreeing with Godot, I think this deserves a go. We don't have Ararat FPs. I tried twice. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Solid picture --Երևանցի talk 12:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Not perfect, but nice depth-of-field for a non-focus-stacked shot. It might be nice to have a little sharper, but it's very good and I think it should pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Mount Ararat and the Yerevan skyline.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 04:20:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- A fine image by a notable photographer. A lot of fingerprints, but otherwise a strong base image, which has been very carefully restored.
- Articles in which this image appears
- You can argue which is most important, but: Booker T. Washington, Atlanta Exposition Speech, Frances Benjamin Johnston
- FP category for this image
- Some subcategory of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People
- Creator
- Frances Benjamin Johnston, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - A bit of motion blur, but given the age this is to be expected. Very nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Per Chris. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - per Chris --Godot13 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Booker T. Washington by Francis Benjamin Johnston, c. 1895.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Added image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2016 at 22:02:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, high EV. Image of a large volcanic tephra/pyroclast from an underrepresented geographical area.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tephra
- FP category for this image
- Natural phenomena/Others
- Creator
- Godot13
- Support as nominator – Godot13 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'd consider it more useful if we knew the composition. There are quite a few kinds of rock which are linked to volcanism (andesite, for instance, which this does not appear to be). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per Skilling, I. P. (1994). Evolution of an englacial volcano: Brown Bluff, Antarctica. (not publicly available on line, and I was only able to read the first two pages), it appears to be "alkali basaltic" in composition (at least the Brown Bluff tephra in general appears to be), I think this is referring to the darker solid chunks contained in the lighter matrix material.--Godot13 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Frustratingly, this appears to be the only Brown Bluff specific tephra reference I can find...--Godot13 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Fair enough. I would try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science to see if they can confirm this; if so, we could use the image in the alkali basalt article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Request for additional info made.--Godot13 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per information request:"Hard be to certain, but the deposits at Brown Bluff and other locations within the James Ross Island Volcanic Group are mainly formed in lava deltas topped by subaerial lava flows Skilling (2002) erupted into an englacial lake. If this block is part of that, then we're looking at a lump of hyaloclastite breccia, with both clasts and matrix made up of shattered basaltic glass".--Godot13 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, let's not put the image in any rock articles. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per information request:"Hard be to certain, but the deposits at Brown Bluff and other locations within the James Ross Island Volcanic Group are mainly formed in lava deltas topped by subaerial lava flows Skilling (2002) erupted into an englacial lake. If this block is part of that, then we're looking at a lump of hyaloclastite breccia, with both clasts and matrix made up of shattered basaltic glass".--Godot13 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Request for additional info made.--Godot13 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - good enough quality, interesting, even though EV slightly lacking per above. --Janke | Talk 12:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – nice details. Bammesk (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There's a number of small, thin light lines at about this angle: / in the upper right. Are they meant to be there? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Adam - Between the light drizzle/snow (appearing suddenly, then vanishing) and occasional wind-blown debris I think it's all natural. Shows up best against the upper right black, but it is distributed all across the top of the background--Godot13 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. Support then. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Adam - Between the light drizzle/snow (appearing suddenly, then vanishing) and occasional wind-blown debris I think it's all natural. Shows up best against the upper right black, but it is distributed all across the top of the background--Godot13 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Brown Bluff-2016-Tabarin Peninsula–Volcanic tephra.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Added it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology instead. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 19:02:11 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- A fine image of an important early role in the theatre of the Harlem Renaissance. Father of James Earl Jones.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Robert Earl Jones
- FP category for this image
- WP:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Carl Van Vechten, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak
opposesupport- The tight crop ruins, IMO..-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)- @The Herald: It's a fairly standard sort of layout for the time, and it's far less tight than, say, a head and shoulders shot would be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- May be, but still I hold fast, but with weak support. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Looks good to me, I don't mind the framing. Mattximus (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 17:26:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Jack Reed (politician)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
- Creator
- Gage
- Support as nominator – Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – This user opposes all official portraits of serving politicians and campaigning candildates as tantamount to free political advertising. Sca (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Uninteresting official portrait photo. The details of the creator here are wrong BTW. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other - Jobas (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Withdraw Per oppose voters. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted ---The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn.. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2016 at 11:22:07 (UTC)
- Reason
- Saw this while looking around Commons POTD. A striking image, you'll agree.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tsjuder
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Jonas Rogowski
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Halloween is early...-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC) *
- Support - Good EV for the article...--Godot13 (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - DreamSparrow Chat 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Tsjuder, Jan-Erik „Nag“ Romøren at Party.San Metal Open Air 2013.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2016 at 23:58:34 (UTC)
_von_Nicola_Perscheid.jpg)
- Reason
- WWI's anniversary continues, as does WWII's. Hindenburg was arguably one of the most important men in Germany throughout WWI, the interwar period, and, finally, the eventually futile attempts to stop Hitler's rise to power, with him slowly forced to give Hitler more and more power after agreeing to stand for election as president in order to stop him.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Paul von Hindenburg (lead image, has been for a while); I've also been putting it in a couple other articles.
- NOTE: {{CSS image crop}} is used to remove the border in thumbnail, as it's not very legible at that size.
- FP category for this image
- WP:Featured pictures/People/Military seems best - he was a major political player, but that was after this image.
- Creator
- Nicola Perscheid, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Great. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – A semi-tragic figure on the stage of world history. (See below right)
- Support – Looks great, also taken at a good point in his career. Mattximus (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support high quality and EV. SSTflyer 02:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Paul von Hindenburg (1914) von Nicola Perscheid.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 11:32:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- In my opinion a nice picture in good evening light, showing the bridge as well as the train, with a backdrop that immediately makes its location obvious.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Paris Métro Line 6, Pont de Bir-Hakeim
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- DXR
- Support as nominator – DXR (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Very awkward composition, neither the bridge or the train is shown to advantage. --Janke | Talk 12:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Janke. Has rather an impromptu look. Sca (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is one of my favourite parts of Paris, but unfortunately this photo isn't a good representation of it. A broader composition is possible (as demonstrated by the images in the relevant Commons category), and would be much superior. Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the others. This image is fantastic, but may not show enough of the bridge to maximize EV. Do you have any others from the same shoot that show more of the bridge?--Godot13 (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the others – Jobas (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 21:17:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- Frontal night shot of an interesting thing, person gives a sense of scale, lead image in the article. If needed, tweaks of things like highlights or contrast are possible.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Yanar Dag
- FP category for this image
- Natural phenomena/Others or Places/Others
- Creator
- Frokor
- Support as nominator – Brandmeistertalk 21:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, but the background is too dark and the darkness covers half of the photograph. The benches in the front are also a distraction. However, I like this alternative photograph of it more. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I think a night shot is better since it's a fire. Added alt. Brandmeistertalk 07:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – These nighttime shots of a fire over-dramatize the subject. The daytime pix aren't nearly as impressive. (See lower right) Sca (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support original and alt – Slightly grainy sky, but good EV. Not a fan of the layered composition, but the EV makes up for it. I prefer the daytime photo but it isn't very sharp. Bammesk (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support alt, oppose original per ED... Is this what they call the gate of hell?? -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see a gate :) and hope I never will ! Bammesk (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Neither image has enough support for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 08:30:27 (UTC)
- Reason
- A pretty decent historical image of a notable African-American U.S. Medal of Honor awardee.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Christian Fleetwood +3
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military
- Creator
- Unknown creator, restored by Adam Cuerden
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – The pic is what it is and I assume typical of the era, but it's a fascinating story and one under-represented in Civil War lore. (I found Stanton's refusal to make him an officer particulaly interesting.) Sca (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – per Sca. Bammesk (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Jobas (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Sgt Major Christian Fleetwood - American Civil War Medal of Honor recipient - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 19:14:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- high ev as lead image also good quality. Pretty obscure battle so having such a high quality painting is pretty remarkable
- Articles in which this image appears
- Battle of Empel
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
- Creator
- Augusto ferrer dalmau (who is actually the artist Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau)
- Support as nominator – Spongie555 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Unless the image was uploaded by the living artist (preferably with an OTRS tag), this is almost certainly not in the public domain. The author link page does not exist. In addition, at full size, the image does not appear as sharp as it probably could be (in my opinion).--Godot13 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- It does appear that some of the artist's other works have been uploaded with an OTRS tag, so this one probably needs one...--Godot13 (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how to add OTRS but looking at his contributions in a conversation with an Commons admin he [3] gave permission for Wikipedia to use his work. Since this image was uploaded after his other works got OTRS tag from the admin it most likely means he is loading them himself (I assume he isn't familiar that much with Wikipedia) --Spongie555 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it appears the artist is uploading the images (see here). But as each prior file has it's own correspondence with OTRS (and this one does not), I think this is necessary here as well.--Godot13 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I sent an email to the artist asking him to give approval to OTRS, I don't know if or when he will respond though. Spongie555 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it appears the artist is uploading the images (see here). But as each prior file has it's own correspondence with OTRS (and this one does not), I think this is necessary here as well.--Godot13 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how to add OTRS but looking at his contributions in a conversation with an Commons admin he [3] gave permission for Wikipedia to use his work. Since this image was uploaded after his other works got OTRS tag from the admin it most likely means he is loading them himself (I assume he isn't familiar that much with Wikipedia) --Spongie555 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- It does appear that some of the artist's other works have been uploaded with an OTRS tag, so this one probably needs one...--Godot13 (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 14:37:53 (UTC)
_Tswalu.jpg)
- Reason
- Evening light gives beautiful colours. Featured Picture on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Meerkat
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment-This is picture of noble cousins Oleg,Stilyov and Petrov looking resplendent just before their epic trek across burning waste of Kalahari.You vote for them,you is good and honorable,if not you are fiendish scoundrel mongoose. Simples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.202.115 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- DYK... that in German the Meerkat is called the "little Earth man" (Erdmännchen)? Now you know! Sca (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - DreamSparrow Chat 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Jobas (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support What are they looking at?- Us, counting their !votes...-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, they're listening to a speech by a U.S. presidential candidate and wondering how the big guys could have sunk so low. Sca (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Meerkat (Suricata suricatta) Tswalu.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 14:46:36 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Attractive composition showing this endemic sub species. Featured Picture on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Vervain hummingbird
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Charlesjsharp
- Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice shot. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Cool colors, xcllnt detail. Sca (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support Nice, but the background could benefit from a bit of noise reduction... --Janke | Talk 17:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - DreamSparrow Chat 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Jobas (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Vervain hummingbird (Mellisuga minima).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 03:11:48 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality. EV is strong.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Berlin Victory Column
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Der Wolf im Wald
- Support as nominator – Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - White poles are distracting — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Looks as if it's leaning. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Although I agree that the pic should be straightened by rotating left a wee bit. Great detail, not always easy to obtain for such a large vertical (220 ft.) object. Could be added to Berlin. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Low EV as it doesn't include the base of the column (which has historically significant reliefs - see [4] for instance), and not great technically as the photo is slightly tilted. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siegess%C3%A4ule_2.JPG){kind=link}
- I don't see the reliefs on the base as being essential to the pic., because the Victory Column is thought of primarily as a monument to the Prusso-German victory in the epoch-making Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, while the reliefs purport to show scenes from the German-Danish War of 1864.
- In Western historiography, the Danish war generally is seen as a mere prelude to the Franco-Prussian War and the unification of Germany under Prussian hegemony, orchestrated by Bismarck.
- (Casualties in the Franco-Prussian War totaled nearly 900,000; in the Danish war 4,000.)
- Sca (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- The reliefs are a pretty major feature of the monument, and this composition misrepresents what it looks like. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sca (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support – It would be better if the base was included and the flag poles were not, but the image is technically very good and has EV (high resolution and sharp). Enlarging and comparing symmetrical points vertically shows no tilt in the main column. Bammesk (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC) . . . It does seem to be leaning forward a bit. Is there too much perspective correction!? Bammesk (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The composition is really quite poor, and misses out an important part of the structure. When you compare with full-length images, you will see how lacking this one is. 109.145.177.118 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- • Preceding comment posted by an IP user who has been on Wikipedia for two days and has made 13 edits. Sca (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Even if that was true, so what? You think that makes the point any less valid? However, FYI, in fact I have been contributing to Wikipedia for more than ten years and have made thousands of edits. Please understand that many people's IP addresses change every time they connect. 217.44.215.0 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please see WP:REGISTERED. Also, though I see you aren't voting, note that "only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count" – in Promoting an Image above. Sca (talk)
- As noted above, the reliefs aren't part of the column but only its base, and deal with a minor war rather than with the one primarily symbolized by the column, the Franco-Prussian War. Note also that the nominated photo is the lead photo of 10 illustrating our Berlin Victory Column article, which BTW contains no photos of the reliefs. Sca (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Even if that was true, so what? You think that makes the point any less valid? However, FYI, in fact I have been contributing to Wikipedia for more than ten years and have made thousands of edits. Please understand that many people's IP addresses change every time they connect. 217.44.215.0 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- • Preceding comment posted by an IP user who has been on Wikipedia for two days and has made 13 edits. Sca (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - per Bammesk. Spongie555 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 23:11:17 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
- Reason
- High Ev as lead image and good quality scan of the painting
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pope Pius VII, Thomas Lawrence, Papal Slippers, The Waterloo Chamber
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures
- Creator
- Thomas Lawrence
- Support as nominator – Spongie555 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Jobas (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Ham II (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support, good quality and EV. SSTflyer 10:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Promoted File:Sir Thomas Lawrence - Pope Pius VII (1742-1823) - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 08:15:43 (UTC)
- Reason
- high quality photograph of a notable bird, and therefore high EV.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Red-capped robin
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- JJ Harrison
- Support as nominator – Armbrust The Homunculus 08:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are many sharper images from this photographer... Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. There is a small white mark to the left of the bird's head; I think it actually may be a piece of fluff or feather, but it looks rather like a fault, so I wonder if it could be airbrushed out? 86.169.36.217 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see it too. This poor bird is being a good sport to model naturally. The animal modeling industry puts unrealistic expectations on animals to be always groomed. Is it common to remove such details? What pressure for a little animal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Spongie555 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Jobas (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Somewhat agree with Charles. The tail is oof, for sure. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted – Bammesk (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)