Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to current candidates

Skip to: Table of contents | Current candidates | To be closed | More input needed | Candidates for delisting | Recently closed | Suspended candidates
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

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

If you believe an image should be featured, please add it below to the current nominations section. Conversely, if you believe that an image should be unfeatured, add it to the nomination for delisting section.

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

The archive contains all opinions and comments collected on this page, and also nomination results.

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

To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Shortcuts:

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:
Step 1: Evaluate

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

For specific advice on criteria and feedback on images, please post at picture peer review first.
Step 2: Create a subpage

Create a page to place the image on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. To create a subpage, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
Step 3: Transclude and link

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

How to comment

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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

Contents


To see recent changes, purge the page cache
Your comments are also appreciated at Picture peer review.


[edit] Current nominations

FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
William Shakespeare 1609.jpg Flower Portrait


[edit] Stair Hole

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2012 at 00:51:22 (UTC)

Original – Stair Hole is a cove that is forming just to the west of Lulworth Cove in Dorset, southern England. In a few hundred thousand years it may be as large as nearby Lulworth Cove. The folded limestone strata known as the Lulworth crumple are particularly visible at Stair Hole.
Reason
A good depiction of the subject which clearly shows the important features -the arch and the vertical strata on the right.The image is of very high resolution and has no obvious stitching errors (there is one towards the right edge of the water, but it is not very noticeable). The people on the right give a sense of scale.
Articles in which this image appears
Stair Hole
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Farwestern




[edit] Papilio machaon caterpillar

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2012 at 13:47:06 (UTC)

Original – Papilio machaon caterpillar. Size: 42mm.
Reason
Another try after this nomination. See rationales there.
Articles in which this image appears
Papilio machaon
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Archaeodontosaurus
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Good zoom, although the "neck" is partially blurry. Brandmeistertalk 10:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Mottled Umber caterpillar

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2012 at 13:41:14 (UTC)

Original – Mottled Umber (caterpillar), Erannis defoliaria, Family: Geometridae, Location: Germany, Ochsenwang
Reason
High EV, good quality
Articles in which this image appears
Mottled Umber
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Holleday
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Amalfi

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2012 at 13:38:14 (UTC)

Original – Amalfi coast near Naples in Southern Italy.
Reason
Good view, good quality, representive scenery of Amalfi
Articles in which this image appears
Amalfi
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Paolostefano1412
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Befreiunghalle

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2012 at 13:34:35 (UTC)

Original – Befreiungshalle ("Hall of Liberation") upon Mount Michelsberg above the city of Kelheim in Bavaria, Germany
Reason
Another try for this picture after this nomination. I think it has satisfying quality, good EV and nice composition.
Articles in which this image appears
Befreiungshalle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Richard Bartz
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Eurasian Gooseberry, growing wild, Cumbria, UK

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2012 at 14:47:34 (UTC)

Original – Eurasian Gooseberry growing wild on a stone wall, Cumbria, UK
Reason
This is an extremely clear as well as aesthetically pleasing photograph of a fruiting Eurasian Gooseberry plant growing wild.
Articles in which this image appears
Gooseberry
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator
RobinMiller
  • Support as nominator --robo (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. OK, I'll bite. Unfortunately the subject is underexposed due to the bright background. The composition is also fairly lacklustre. Finally, you don't seem to have actually added the image to the article that you mention above, so it's ineligible for featured pictures. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] The Cap Juluca resort, Anguilla

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2012 at 12:19:32 (UTC)

Original – View of the beach at the Cap Juluca Resort, Anguilla (A British Overseas Territory)
Reason
Has a free license, high quality, no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise or other processing anomalies. Has the main subject in focus and is in good composition with no distracting elements.
Articles in which this image appears
Anguilla, Cap Juluca Hotel
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
tiarescott from Beverly Hills, California, USA. Uploaded by myself to Wikipedia
  • Support as nominator --RaviC (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice beach. But like sunsets, such images aren't hard to achieve given the chance. The image is below our new minimum-size requirements. I don't see how the hotel article would survive an AfD. Non-notable as far as I can see. Colin°Talk 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough I suppose about the minimum size requirements. I will have to try and scour Flickr for a larger image. Whilst the hotel article wasn't written by myself and it may well not be notable enough, the real reason why I had nominated the image was for its use in the Anguilla page (Tourism is one of the largest sectors of employment on the island). Regards. --RaviC (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Context and size set aside, the composition leaves much to be desired. The loud bank cut off on the left side of the shot creates a very incomplete feel, and overall the framing is very arbitrary and seems non-deliberate. Juliancolton (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Plan B

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 22:40:52 (UTC)

Original – Promo shot of musician Plan B, taken in 2012
Reason
Like the Beth Shak image below, this promo shot of musician Plan B was uploaded by The Rambling Man. It was taken by photographer James Dillon and has been released to Commons through the OTRS.
Articles in which this image appears
Plan B (musician)
FP category for this image
People/Entertainment
Creator
James Dillon
  • Support as nominator --A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is great when professional pictures of artists get donated. This is certainly a useful picture for the article. But it is too small to be featured quality. Also the chap's fringe shows some artefacts, perhaps over-sharpening when downsized from 21MP to 1.9MP. As a pose, I think we should see a little more of the eyes than we do. Colin°Talk 07:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems that saying "it is too small to be featured quality" is too decisive a statement to be in accord with either the old or new criteria, as both allow for unique images (and the latest one also for "difficult" images). Samsara (FA • FP) 09:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There's nothing about this image that justifies its tiny resized-for-web size, other than that was the limit the generosity of the donation (though sometimes the contributor actually thinks we'd prefer smaller picture, perhaps to save disk space, or because the don't see why we'd need a larger one if we only show it as a 240px thumbnail). I don't see any reason to make an allowance for the minimum size requirement. It is a deeply ordinary shot anyway. We'll start featuring any old shot that is in focus and reasonbly exposed next... Colin°Talk 10:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not sure that this promo shot is the best candidate for a featured picture, generally speaking, because it shows what the album label/photographer wants you to see, rather what the person is really like. Well, unless this guy is camera-shy anyway. Agree with Colin, the lack of visibility of his face doesn't help. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose agree that more visibility of the face is preferable. Pine✉ 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I like the lighting and the backdrop, but overall the gazing-out-into-the-distance composition just seems awkward... --Fir0002 10:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with most of the other oppose reasons. Simple portraits obviously do not have mitigating circumstances for the size not meeting the criteria. --99of9 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. The composition is excellent, but his not looking at the camera takes away from the EV considerably. Dusty777 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Beth Shak

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 22:21:51 (UTC)

Original – American professional poker player Beth Shak, photographed in 2011
Cropped - not to be considered for FP
Reason
This high-quality image of professional poker player Beth Shak has been donated to the Wikimedia Foundation by Douglas Sonders, and (I believe) was handled through the OTRS by user The Rambling Man.
Articles in which this image appears
Beth Shak (lead image)
FP category for this image
People/Others
Creator
Douglas Saunders
  • Support as nominator --A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There hasn't been something like this for a while (although slight crop may be warranted). Brandmeistertalk 08:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Low EV as I wouldn't guess she's notable as a poker player from this image. If there would be a joker sticking out somewhere... Also staged images are non-neutral, but rather promotional. --ELEKHHT 11:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Low EV. As Ms. Shak is not an interior decorator, far too much of this shot is occupied by a tastefully-appointed apartment; as Elekhh notes, this image's composition does nothing to link Ms. Shak to poker. While on a personal level I don't mind looking at photographs of women with pretty bodies, this image could be of any generic glamour model—its EV is harmed by the way that it minimizes her face against so much pleasant-but-extraneous matter. Truth be told, this image is high-enough resolution that there's a not-too-bad (featured-quality resolution, but not featured-quality composition) head-and-shoulders crop that would probably be better from an EV standpoint; I've uploaded such a crop for comparison but not voting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: although I'm not opposed to photographs of people not doing the things for which they are known, the promotional nature, stance and composition doen't lend themselves to it being a clear portrait of the person. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support the image does seem promotional and unrelated to poker, but it wouldn't be out of place in the collection of existing Featured Pictures at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment, so I don't feel there is sufficient grounds for an oppose on the basis insufficient EV or the promotional pose. Someone is welcome to do a D&R later with a photo of her playing poker. Pine✉ 07:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support High quality portrait image. If she was only a poker player then I probably wouldn't support for the reasons above (would be better to have some kind of context or a more neutral/natural candid shot) - however per the article, she is also a fashion designer (women's shoes in particular) and this justifies the glamour photo IMO --Fir0002 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose She is not a model, so zero EV. Just another picture with boring background (is this a fridge next to her?). Also it is rather promotional.--GoPTCN 13:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • We have several promoted photographs of people that are portraits rather than them doing the thing(s) for which they are famous (one example). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the fame of the subject may change the criteria slightly. Sammy Davis Jr is unquestionably a notable figure. Beth Shak isn't, and interest in her should be related to her poker playing, not her (provocative, in the case of this photo) appearance or her lifestyle. robo (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is great to get high-quality full-resolution professional photographs. But, as noted at Commons, this is surely not the best photo taken during that shoot: her left foot is off the ground and her knee sticks out against the door. And it is more about her fine apartment than her personally. I note that we have a high-EV photograph of her File:Beth Shak.jpg which isn't FP quality but more appropriate for the article. However, it was removed from the article for non-encyclopaedic reasons (see talk). She's notable for the poker aspect and nothing else as far as I can see. I don't buy the fashion designer justifying glamour shot claim (read the article carefully: she collects shoes and plans a range of fashion, according to the unsourced text). If she was a fashion model or tv presenter then perhaps the pose would be appropriate. Colin°Talk 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Finally someone points out the dislocated knee cap! 131.137.245.209 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (Strong) oppose this is a PR photo with next to no EV. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Per Colin. I don't see anything in the criteria that says a promotional picture has any less EV then a non-promotional picture (a picture is a picture.) I believe that we are supposed to judge nominations by the criteria, and vote based on those set guidelines, not come up with a random reason to oppose (with an exception to Colin who actually found some minor flaws, and I agree with most of his concerns). I see no reason for opposing due it possibly being a promotional picture. Dusty777 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The reason is one of much higher importance than the FPC guideline, it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the neutral point of view principle, which states that articles should "document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner". Promotional is not impartial. And since there it is only one image in the infobox, and in the whole article, the representation is not impartial. --ELEKHHT 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Balance is a luxury we can rarely afford for pictures, particularly for people. We pick from a very limited choice so tend to include any reasonable picture. And photographs, of any quality, are nearly always posed so naturally present a positive side of the person. When judging EV, we're looking at just one photo, so it can't sum up the person in their entirity nor can it be balanced on its own. It helps EV if the picture shows off an important aspect of their personality (such as the sport they play, or career). I don't think we should rule out promotional pictures, indeed for someone who is a "star", a promotional picture has higher EV than some random snapshot of them walking down the street. I agree that this promotional picture has low EV but a promotional picture of her playing poker might have great EV. Colin°Talk 14:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Very much agree with the last sentence. However, I can only assess EV in the context of the whole article, not simply by "looking at just one photo". And while no single image can "sum up the person in their entirety", five documentary pictures will provide a much more comprehensive and balanced representation than five promotional ones. --ELEKHHT 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Tell me, what makes a promotional picture different then a non-promotional picture? Elekhh, can you elaborate a little on how the picture being a promotional picture affects the NPOV? It seems to me that is an issue with the article... I don't see how that affects the nomination. Dusty777 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for the others but in my mind it's not about neutrality; it's about the fact that the photograph is staged so as to show off the subject is a glamour sense and not about documenting what she actually looks like for an encyclopedia. The staging here detracts from how well it illustrated the subject for the encyclopedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I do think this is missing the point. "Documenting what they look like" isn't generally why people commission photographs or even permit photographs to be taken. I don't see any passport photographs making FP. Would you expect a high-EV photo of Audrey Hepburn to be anything other than staged to show of a beautiful actress? This kind of photo might be appropriate for another biography article, but seems unjustified and inappropriate here. What next? Boudoir photographs for Olympic athletes? Colin°Talk 15:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
(undent, re to Colin) no, I don't think so. We do have publicity FPs (off the top of my head, the Stephen Wolfram one and some of performers); they certainly can be good illustrations of the person: this one isn't so much; I'm neutral because I think it does a pretty good job. Other than that you've lost me with the rest of your post. Boudoir photographs are very unlikely to illustrate the subject well, that's quite the point. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.png purely on the opportunity to make shack up jokes.TCO (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Brown Company

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 21:42:43 (UTC)

Original – The Brown Company paper mill in Berlin, New Hampshire was one of the leading pulp and paper producers in America at its time.
Reason
Very superb looking image. This image says a thousand words about the men working in the mill, the log drivers who brought the wood to the mill, and this image is just a piece of American history of the pulp and paper industry that is slowly dyeing.
Articles in which this image appears
Brown Company
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator
Russianamerican1
  • Support as nominator --Russianamerican1 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, I would like to see proof of this photo's public domain status, As the high quality (no grain at all) lends me to believe it was made after 1923. Second, even for a subject which no longer exists, this is paltry quality. For 500x300 size, it should be a much more notable event pictured; I can't imagine there aren't more and better public domain photos of this subject.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close Fails size criteria. Dusty777 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Dusty. It is little more than a thumbnail. And the nominator is reading far more into the picture than is present. I see hardly any factory/mill, just a chimney and a bridge. Could be almost anywhere. Colin°Talk 07:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Tomb of Humayun

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 17:26:27 (UTC)

Original – Tomb of Humayun, Delhi, India
Reason
Good quality, EV, resolution. Featured at commons
Articles in which this image appears
Tomb of Humayun, Humayun, Mughal emperors, Mughal architecture, Turko-Persian tradition and more
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim
  • Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that all four façades are very similar. Which one do we see here? --ELEKHHT 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This is the view from the main entrance --Muhammad(talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • On Google Earth the main entrance is indicated on the West. But according to the metadata the image was taken at 13:26, which with the given shadows makes it look as the Southern facade. Can you please confirm? --ELEKHHT 03:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I checked with Google earth and I'm pretty sure this is the West facade. The actual time was around 4:30pm (metadata time is incorrect) --Muhammad(talk) 10:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I modified the file description accordingly. --ELEKHHT 12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor composition. Out of focus fountain spray in the centre of the image is very distracting and ruins the image for me. Either it should have included the fountain fully, or the shot should have been taken in front of the fountain and the spray avoided. --Fir0002 10:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I don't find the spray too bad. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Oppose I wouldn't go as far as mentioning a poor composition, but I think Fir0002 is right otherwise. A pity. - Blieusong (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Frank Sinatra

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 15:27:26 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of Frank Sinatra at Liederkrantz Hall, New York. By William P. Gottlieb, c. 1947.
Reason
High resolution and good detail, good pose and expression. High EV picture of an influential singer, by a notable photographer.
Articles in which this image appears
Frank Sinatra
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
William P. Gottlieb
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support very good EV, good quality. Very appreciative of William P. Gottlieb's donation. Looking forward to more FP nominations from the collection. --ELEKHHT 11:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer a clearer photo but given the age of the photo, the placement as lead image in the article, and the size of the scan, I'll support. Pine✉ 07:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --GoPTCN 13:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.png TCO (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Myrtle Warbler

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 15:22:00 (UTC)

Original – Myrtle Warbler (Dendroica coronata coronata), male, breeding plumage, Léon-Provancher marsh, Québec, Canada.
Reason
After the previous nomination got somewhat-stuck and is in an unclear situation, I decided to try nominate this picture in a new vote, and maybe that will make things more clear. See rationales there.
Articles in which this image appears
Myrtle Warbler
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Cephas




[edit] The Kings College Cambridge

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 11:32:17 (UTC)

Original – The King's College of our Lady and Saint Nicholas in Cambridge
Reason
Encyclopedic and High quality, Has a free license
Articles in which this image appears
King's College, Cambridge, Bernard Williams, Cambridge,River Cam,University of Cambridge, Luigi Pasinetti
FP category for this image
Education
Creator
User:Solipsist, Author Andrew Dunn
  • Support as nominator --Danesman (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A nice enough picture but it has been "resized for the web" down to just 0.7MP and 218KB. Colin°Talk 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not keen on the angle this has been taken at. I will admit I don't know enough about Kings College to know if all the buildings are connected, but the white building to the right obscures the majority of the building with spires; the aforementioned white building is partially obscured by trees, and the long building to the left is cut off. A further out shot, from an elevated position would provide a much better angle and thus show the buildings better. I'm sure I remember seeing the central building from an elevated position on a television program so I would like to think a better picture is available... gazhiley 12:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too low resolution to have sufficient EV for the buildings in the background, and for the landscape the framing is too tight. Not a bad composition, although the tree on the right appears somewhat uncontrolled. Nice image but not FP. --ELEKHHT 11:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The composition is a bit awkward. The photo appears to have been taken from the meadow across from the college, and I think that the photographer could have obtained a much better result from walking a bit to his left. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Daisy

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 09:27:16 (UTC)

Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv
Original – This historical television advertisement is considered a factor in Johnson's landslide victory in the 1964 presidential election over Barry Goldwater and an important turning point in political and advertising history.
Reason
This historic video has enormous encyclopedic value. The ad aired only once, on September 7, 1964. I speculate that few people outside of a poli sci or marketing class have ever seen the full ad. Although it has been imitated repeatedly.
Articles in which this image appears
Daisy (advertisement), Campaign advertising, Attack ad, Fear mongering, Political Psychological Rationalization, Timeline of modern American conservatism, Culture during the Cold War
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator
Lyndon B Johnson's 1964 Presidential campaign; uploaded by Lionelt


  • Support as nominator --– Lionel (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support strong EV. Pine✉ 07:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support concur with reasons already given. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The ad's historical message is still important today. Brandmeistertalk 20:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Educational for a wide variety of purposes. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.png for history, but...fucking Johnson...grr...TCO (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Technical comment: you should really show the thing with the girl (the as on FP picture). There is some setting where the whole video is there and plays from the start, but you show a particular instant. Not sure why that is not the default choice for voting.]]TCO (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. – Lionel (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. How is this not featured already? (Maybe because no one could find the early version with the simpler tagline "In your heart ... you know he might." Main Page on U.S. Election Day! One of the best attack ads ever! (and it's PD) Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support Maile66 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] El Descendimiento, by Rogier van der Weyden

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2012 at 01:12:24 (UTC)

Original – The Descent from the Cross. Rogier van der Weyden. c. 1435. Oil on oak panel, 220cm × 262 cm. Museo del Prado, Madrid
Reason
This image is one of the most beautiful I have ever seen. It is full of rich colors and high emotion and is of a very high quality.
Articles in which this image appears
Descent from the Cross, Early Netherlandish painting, Museo del Prado, Renaissance art, Rogier van der Weyden, Swoon of the Virgin, The Descent from the Cross (van der Weyden), The Entombment (Bouts)
FP category for this image
no idea
Creator
Rogier van der Weyden
  • Support as nominator --Rvjog (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support the version showing complete framing once it scores the required 7 days. Brandmeistertalk 15:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The other picture is better.--GoPTCN 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Dcoetzee is not the creator. --99of9 (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no need to identify it by its Spanish title. Van der Weyden wouldn't have called it by this name and we have a couple of acceptable English titles, most commonly The Descent from the Cross. Yomanganitalk 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Leucippus fallax

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 15:10:20 (UTC)

Original – The Buffy Hummingbird (Leucippus fallax) is a species of hummingbird in the Trochilidae family. It is found in Colombia, French Guiana, and Venezuela. Its natural habitats are subtropical or tropical dry forests, subtropical or tropical mangrove forests, and subtropical or tropical dry shrubland.
Alt 1: Higher resolution version with some denoising
Reason
Beautiful pose, trouble shooting and excellent quality for the encyclopedia
Articles in which this image appears
Buffy Hummingbird
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Wilfredor
  • Support as nominator --Wilfredor (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Image quality is not as good as what we've come to expect from other wildlife photos taken by other contributors, and the view looking up at the bird is not ideal, but it's well composed and we don't have a lot of images from this part of the world. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • On the assumption that this depicts a live bird and not a museum specimen, support. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point, it does look a bit... stuffed. But I'm pretty sure it's not in a museum, as the effective 35mm focal length is 780mm (the camera sensor's crop factor is 5.2). That's a fairly extreme magnification for shooting an interior shot in a museum. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the aperture, iso, shutter speed combination is enough to rule out interior of a museum. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as in Commons. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Diliff. Amended description per original file and geocode: the image was taken on Isla Margarita, Venezuela. --ELEKHHT 12:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose this isn't "among Wikipedia's best work" for technical quality. Pine✉ 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough for me. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'original': It looks like it's been cut-out. There are white margins in places and blurry edges in others. (Which isn't as noticeable in this larger resolution version.) Julia\talk 07:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right. I prefer the other version actually. I don't think it's been cut out so much as poorly sharpened with a large radius, giving a bit of a halo effect. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Julia. The original is not only larger in dimensions but considerably larger in file size, so something's been lost (though that might just be noise). The original has also had a colour "fix" though I've no way of knowing if that improved things. Although the reduction in size hasn't seemed to lose much detail, it wasn't necessary as the original wasn't offensively blocky or noisy. Re: the stuffed look. The whole (original) picture has a strange quality. It reminds me of an illustration (rather than photo) of a bird in one of my dad's v old encyclopaedias. The current article version has been damaged by the smoothing manipulations, which affect the bird's outline and cause a halo on the branch. I'd support the larger original per Diliff's comments and those made on Commons FP about the difficulty of making this shot. Colin°Talk 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Alt 1 added. A little bit of noise removal from Wilfredor's bigger original. Julia\talk 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support alt 1. Julia\talk 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] I'timād-ud-Daulah

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 10:41:01 (UTC)

Original – Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah, Agra, India
Reason
Good quality, EV, res, few Indian FPs
Articles in which this image appears
Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah, Mirza Ghiyas Beg, Mughal architecture
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim
  • Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 10:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent detail (probably didn't need to be downsampled so substantially?), near enough perfect perspective correction and nice composition. A formulaic but excellently taken photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Diliff. No reason not to that I can see... gazhiley 16:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support good technicals judging by the above supports and clear EV. I would, however, like to stress that in my mind "few Indian FPs" is most definitely not a reason. The only question similar is whether this photograph on this topic is undermined in EV by us having better photographs of the same thing (it is not, the "Mausoleum" photograph should probably be removed). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a strong objection as to why good images like Humayun's Tomb from the entrance, Delhi.jpg and Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg have been removed by Mr. Karim from the articles to adjust his own photographs.Sanyambahga (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not really the place to discuss those changes, you should bring it up on the article talk pages. Muhammad added the images over 10 days ago and there has been no discussion or reversions since then, so as far as FPC is concerned, there is no problem. I personally think that his image is better than either of the images you linked to. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Sanyambahga, is there an aspect of the two images that you linked which makes them more suitable for the Mughal architecture article that they were removed from? It seems the replacements are better quality and also very encyclopaedic. Would you mind explaining the objection further? Julia\talk 14:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that the FPC should replace Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg as the lead image in the article Tomb of I'timād-ud-Daulah, but Itmad-ud-Daula 24.jpg should have atleast been inserted into the gallery by Muhammad. -- Sanyambahga (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I think File:Itmad-ud-Daula 24.JPG does have a distinct EV as it illustrates the relationship between the gateway and the mausoleum. The scope of the article is the whole complex, not simply the mausoleum. As such is valuable and I re-added it to the gallery of the article. However this image is far superior in providing a detailed overview of the mausoleum itself. If the two would be of similar quality, I think it would be a reasonable debate as to which should be in the lead. --ELEKHHT 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A symmetry shot has to be symmetrical. The lower third section with the path is out of whack, so it looks slightly tilted. The composition is unimaginative: a straight-on view, taken in harsh daylight (dimmed somewhat by the pollution haze) that bleaches out the colour and flattens tones, with no apparent consideration of the effects - negative or otherwise - of the shadows. An uninspiring postcard pic of a lesser-known monument in an area full of them. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be suspended if there's a dispute over its placement? I thought that was the usual procedure... Samsara (FA • FP) 08:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think that there really is any significant dispute. Nothing has been raised officially on the talk page of the articles. As I mentioned above, the image has been sitting happily in the articles for 10 days without any disputes and it wasn't until the image was nominated that any complaint was made. I'm confident that the image can remain in the article as it's clearly the most detailed image available. Any dispute resolution would likely involve re-adding the removed images (if deemed to be useful), rather than removing Muhammad's image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that whether the dispute is brought up here or on the talk page is a particularly significant detail to the question of whether a dispute has arisen. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Well any dispute should go through the appropriate channels, surely? Until such times, I don't think the dispute is in any way official. In any case, I don't think this potential dispute is grounds for suspension of the nomination. If against all odds, the image is removed from all the articles and becomes ineligible for FP, then we could always just run a delist. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor license and down sampled? -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Those are not valid reasons according to the FPC Criteria. The license is acceptable according to both wikimedia and wikipedia and the image is of considerably high resolution at 5.6mp coming from a 10mp camera --Muhammad(talk) 10:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Strike off my opposition per the arguments by Muhammad. (But I'm not sure why a document license is used for a media. I don't like people selling original works and gifting down-sampled/cropped ones here. I don't know whether this is a reasonable argument, not any evidence for any particular user.) -- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment As the image is not geocoded, if you remember, could you please specify in the description which façade do we see? --ELEKHHT 12:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This was the view opposite to the main entrance --Muhammad(talk) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's from the west, thanks, support now. --ELEKHHT 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I find some of the alternate photos of the buildings more interesting but this one has superior size. Technical quality and EV are good. Pine✉ 08:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support JJ Harrison (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] The main square of Wulanhua Town in Inner Mongolia, China

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 07:45:12 (UTC)

Original – The main square of Wulanhua Town in Inner Mongolia, China
Reason
high technical standard, high resolution, free licence, adds encyclopedic value to articles in English and Chinese, is verifiable, has an informative description in several languages, avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places
Creator
azylber
  • Support as nominator --Azylber (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurred when viewed full size, and all buildings in the background tilted into the middle. gazhiley 08:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uninspiring viewpoint. The encyclopedic value would be substantially higher if it showed the whole Square, not just the statue. --Asiir (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not match up to the nominator's claims nor the required qualities. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Which of the claims? Azylber (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject too small in the centre. Walk forward or zoom in. The tilt needs correcting too. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Cirl Bunting

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 07:02:44 (UTC)

Original – The Cirl Bunting is a passerine bird in the bunting family Emberizidae, a group now separated by most modern authors from the finches, Fringillidae.
Alternative colours
Reason
Encyclopedic, High quality, Good framing.
Articles in which this image appears
Cirl Bunting
FP category for this image
Creator
Paco Gómez
  • Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hmm, this may be a controversial one. It's below our minimum resolution specifications by some distance. The frustrating thing is that it appears downsampled and I think it's cropped too tightly. If both of those were not the case, it would likely pass easily. It does also seem to have a slightly warm tint that perhaps could be corrected. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Added alternative, support either. This was taken in Spain (in winter, early to mid-morning), so the actual scene may have been warm in tint. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you aware that this fails the criteria now, as per my above comments? It's below our required resolution (which was raised recently to 1500px on the short side) which we waive only in exceptional circumstances... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you aware that I do not consider your criteria to have actually passed, as I consider discussion to be ongoing? Samsara (FA • FP) 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The discussion has been going on for over a month, and consensus seems pretty clear. If that's not "passed" by your definition, then I haven't a clue what would be? Things like this doesn't go on forever, and not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye or agree, but the majority do agree, and there isn't really a big descenting group of people actively opposing, so it's as good as closed. — raekyt 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

*Support original someone could easily add a few hundred pixels of background image to this photo and leave the bird the same size to make the image qualify for the possible 1500 pixel on a side minimum. In this photo's current state, it's a good illustration of the subject. We can do a D&R later if someone gets a better photo. Pine✉ 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Change to Reluctant oppose after looking at the strength of support for the 1500 minimum. I will respect that consensus, and I think that there isn't a strong reason to make an exception to the 1500 minimum here. Pine✉ 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose WB off in both versions, small by any account. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose does not meet size requirements (by a long way). --99of9 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Map of the Battle of Tinian

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 15:33:27 (UTC)

Original – Map of the Battle of Tinian in 1944, part of the Pacific Campaign.
Reason
Doesn't have the "wow factor" of some of my previous maps, but that's because of the limited size and complexity of Tinian itself. Instead, it presents a clear outline of the way that US forces moved down the island, something largely missing from the original US military map which has been augmented with details from other sources. For once the compilation of sources were almost entirely consistent. SVG map with the usual associated benefits.
Articles in which this image appears
Battle of Tinian
FP category for this image
Diagrams, drawings, and maps
Creator
User:Grandiose from works by the US military and others (see file description)
  • Support as nominator --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments This is very good, though I have a two comments: 1) the 2nd Marine Division landed on 25 July after making a feint at Tinian Town on the 24th, and didn't land on 24 July as is implied by the current map 2) not all the "landing beaches" were in fact used to land the assault force - this battle is notable for the fact that only the two very small "White" beaches were used to land the large marine force (the other beaches were potentially usable, but were ruled out as they were defended - I think that some of them were later used to land supplies though). This map from the official US Army history of the Marianas campaign may be helpful in addressing these comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've made the suggested dating changes, I believe that that the second point is better covered textually rather than in illustration form. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.png based on this thing being incredibly difficult and important and there really is quite a lot of thought in the composition of all the different elements. That said, I have some technical comments:

1. Add a compass arrow.

1.5 Consider rotating 90 degrees (wide aspect displays better on typical monitors).

As a comment, that would make the map really confusing. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Consider the scale and the usage in article also the text). This sort of thing would work much better centered and large in article and then support the article discussion of the geography of the attack.

3. My father was in the attack, commanding a small amphib. And also later transhipped the atom bomb.TCO (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)





[edit] Robert Sheehan

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 13:40:26 (UTC)

Original – Robert Sheehan, an Irish actor, at the Minghella Film Festival in 2011.
Reason
Uncluttered and flattering recent portrait of an actor without looking either too posed or too candid. Not something we get very often. The resolution is good and although it's slightly soft, I don't think it detracts from the image or the EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Robert Sheehan
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People
Creator
Marie-Lan Nguyen
  • Support as nominator --Julia\talk 13:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • opposite ill lighting al (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I quite like the lighting. This is not a formal portrait, so I don't expect the same control of the lighting. It's a slightly unorthodox portrait composition, but it seem to work quite well in this case. Sharpness isn't great at 100% but enough detail is there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Diliff --Muhammad(talk) 17:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks distinctly "posed" to me, in that well-worn "Now look soulfully into the middle-distance" way. Alas, the requisite secretive half-smile and the "alert gazelle" head-held-high together give him an unfortunate look of self-conscious smugness. But the real problems: the sharpness is a bit iffy and the "lighting" very much so: on the hair it emphasizes that its dyed and as for the shadows on the face - those on the forehead look like the skin has peeled off. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Aesthetics aren't our foremost consideration here at FP, and this photo meets the Featured Picture Criteria. Pine✉ 08:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Pine. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Flower Portrait

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 08:48:37 (UTC)

Original – Flower portrait, a portrait of William Shakespeare, believed to be the source image for Droeshout engraving in the 19th century. In 2005 it was proved that the portrait was made in the 19th century, and not in 1609, as inscribed on the upper left corner of the painting.
Reason
The "Flower portrait", a painting revealed in the 19th century, which was then believed to be the source painting which Martin Droeshout copied to the Droeshout engraving, but then later provied to be a fake, a 19th century painting impersonated to be a 1609 painting. The image has good detail, altough some unavoidable wear, and it also has the original signature/description and false date inscribed (see upper left corner).
Articles in which this image appears
Flower portrait, Droeshout portrait, Portraits of William Shakespeare
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
Unknown
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support clear image, good EV. It's ironic that we're featuring a piece of artwork that's a fake, but the fake itself has EV. Pine✉ 08:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Cloud-to-ground lightning during a thunderstorm

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2012 at 07:41:42 (UTC)

Original – A lightning strike during a thunderstorm.
Reason
Large clear image, good technical quality, good illustration of the subject, already featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Thunderstorm in the section Cloud-to-ground lightning, and I just replaced images in the articles Lightning and Storm with this because this has better technical quality in my opinion.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
Creator
smial
  • Support as nominator --Pine✉ 07:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The subject of the picture (the lightening) takes up a very small part of the overall image. The stricking colour and paterns of the cloud that take up over 50% of the image draw more attention to me. Otherwise a very clear and perfectly timed shot. gazhiley 08:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Lightning isn't necessarily the most important part of this photo depending on how the photo is used. This photo is also being used in the articles storm and thunderstorm. I understand your concern about the size of the lightning strike in the image, but in my opinion the size of the lightning strike in the image is not a very significant point in this case, and the context for the lightning is helpful for the viewer to see. Pine✉ 08:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • When the title of the nom states that it's about a lightning strike then as far as I'm concerned the lightning is the focal point... Or should be... gazhiley 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It's use in both articles, specifically in thunderstorm indicates the lightning is the primary focus. As for a good EV for a thunderstorm, then this FP File:Anvil_shaped_cumulus_panorama_edit_crop.jpg would of course win, because it shows the full cloud formation... so Oppose here too. — raekyt 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I think you are overreaching a bit, but I respect that you feel differently. I think that this nominated photo has better technical quality and size characteristics than the one that you linked, and if you look at this image full size I think the lightning is clearly seen at good size in the context of a thunderstorm. Pine✉ 08:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • support--good quality Alborzagros (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For EV on lightning it should really be the subject of the image, not incidental in the background. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • How many distinct lightning events did the exposure capture? Juliancolton (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)






[edit] Nominations older than 9 days — to be closed

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

[edit] Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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

[edit] 1929 Belgian banknote redux

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2012 at 03:12:15 (UTC)

Original – The frontside (top) and backside of the 10,000 Belgian franc banknote of 1929, designed by Constant Montald, approximate size 220x134,5 mm (description).
Reason
From the original nomination by Brandmeister, "A very arty example of the oldschool banknotes, with inscriptions in several languages, notable designer. The bleed-through of the original scans has been largely fixed.". I addressed the dirt issues, but it was late in the nom and so this may not have had enough time for feedback. Worth another shot
Articles in which this image appears
Belgian franc
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator
Constant Montald, scanned by the Museum of the National Bank of BelgiumBrandmeister and retouched by Crisco 1492
  • Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Actually it was Museum of the Belgium's National Bank that sent me the scan. Brandmeistertalk 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per myself last time. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support   ■ MMXX  talk  12:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Have copyright concerns from last nomination been addressed satisfactorily? Does this actually count as a free license? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Pine's not here to give us his feedback, so I'll email the bank. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • From the email:

    "In practice, the National Bank does not pursue possible infringements of its copyright on Belgian franc banknotes which were issued prior to 1944. The reason being that these banknotes can no longer be exchanged for euro notes at our counters. These banknotes have no residual monetary value. As a result, there is no objection against the reproduction of a 1929 Belgian franc banknote on the internet (even without respecting the ECB decision referred to above), at least as far as the National Bank's copyright is concerned."

The email also directed me to this document, pointing to section 2.3 f), which reads essentially that digital reproductions are considered legal (not necessarily copyrightwise, but from a currency law POV) that digital reproductions should be no greater than 72dpi and have "SPECIMEN" written across it in large, easily legible font.
I'm still confused. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Since they are no longer legal tender they should just be treated as an artwork. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hm, that one is a mess. Ordinarily, I can't speak for Belgium, ordinary copyright protection applies to the note/stamp/etc. This is held by the bank. What are standard Belgian copyright terms? The problem here is that "In practice, the National Bank does not pursue possible infringements of its copyright on Belgian franc banknotes which were issued prior to 1944. The reason being that these banknotes can no longer be exchanged for euro notes at our counters. These banknotes have no residual monetary value." sounds like a mixture of this and the below point.
There is then a separate set of rules that affect things like banknotes only, that deal with the possibilities for misuse. Obviously what that is aimed at is minimising forgeries. If you can no longer use a forgery of it, then common sense says that that sort of protection shouldn't apply – but that doesn't mean the law necessarily reflects common sense. (Assuming Belgium works like the other systems I've seen.) If we trust the template, and I don't know on what basis it was drawn up, then it seems to check out?Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Rather no. But the Bank gives a green light per above so it is safe to have the file in Commons (although there should be a credit to the Bank). Brandmeistertalk 10:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • On the description page or in the article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The current license looks ok for me, but you may send the Bank's e-mail reply to OTRS to wipe out all concerns. Brandmeistertalk 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I object. The bank may claim copyright even if the content is in the Public Domain. We have seen this happen in the past. Who is the artist? The bank can hold corporate copyright maybe, but those too expire. The law is unclear about this. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The current license does not cover notes no longer accepted as legal tender. The bank does not have anything to protect as they are just pieces of paper with artwork on them. They have no more legal standing or protection than a lithograph from the same time. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately that is not reason enough for a free license on its own. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have a link to support that opinion? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not-free until proven otherwise had been the standard practice on Wikipedia since it's creation more or less. "They probably wouldn't care" has never been a free license. My point is what the bank thinks is irrelevant if the files are old enough to count as free. If bank still holds the copyright (somehow) asking them to release the old currency with a free license is a difficult task. The government probably owns the copyright, not the bank. Currency IP may for example belong to the Belgian monarchy. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I wholly agree. These are no longer currency. As such the bank has no standing in the matter with respect to protetion of legal tenders. Given this, the notes fall under usual IP protections. Looking at the date they are PD in the coutry of origin. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The OTRS volunteer who replied to the email seems to have construed it as being "you can only use this on Wikipedia"... another snafu in a day full of them Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The key words seem to be "there is no objection against the reproduction of a 1929 Belgian franc banknote on the internet (even without respecting the ECB decision referred to above), at least as far as the National Bank's copyright is concerned". The Bank's copyright is concerned in the file, so don't see any obstacle in OTRS confirmation and subsequent promotion. Brandmeistertalk 10:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I see why people tend to not bother with OTRS... Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The OTRS reply I received seemed to think that the email indicated that the file was okayed for Wikimedia use by the bank (which is nowhere in that email, so...). I think PD-Belgium may apply as well, as it was published more than 70 years ago by an institution and not individual author.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced here. The bank has said that it would not be within their policy to persue copyright complaints of this type, and that they have no objection to it appearing online. This is very different from it being in the public domain or them giving carte blanche with regards to its use. That said, if this genuinely is an anonymous work, PD-Belgium would seem to apply for the artwork. I'd recommend that this is clarified on the image page. IANAL. J Milburn (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Closing procedure

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

When promoted, perform the following:

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


[edit] Nominations for delisting

Shortcut:

Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture.

For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.

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

Use the tool below to nominate for delisting.

  • Please use Keep, Delist, or Delist and Replace to summarise your opinion.

[edit] Cirrus Field

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2012 at 12:42:30 (UTC)

CirrusField-color.jpg
Reason
Low quality, Small size (336 KB), Unsuccessful Candidacy in Commons
Articles this image appears in
Cirrus cloud
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cirrus Field
Nominator
Kasir talk
  • Delist — Kasir talk 12:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep It is representative for this type of cloud. Besides, it was delist candidate about one month ago and the result was: KEEP. Featured picture candidates/delist/Cirrus clouds--Monfie (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. I have trouble understanding why you would want to delist a picture that you wanted to promote just yesterday! Needless to say that all of us (two above users + me) come from the Persian Wikipedia and all of these games originates from there (FP nomination page). I think this issue—deciding about if this image is a featured one here or not—should be left for editors of the English Wikipedia rather than Persian Wikipedia! so I propose a Speedy Keep. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist I think this is showing its age, and would never be promoted nowadays. Blown highlights, overprocessing, and small size (for a landscape especially!). --99of9 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


[edit] File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg (2)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 16:19:08 (UTC)

Possibly the wrong species
Reason
First time around, we ran out time after trying to determine if this was a picture of the correct species or not. The conclusion was that it might be, but it wasn't 100% certain. Without a definitive species identification, then it by definition it should be delisted. Regardless, it's still not in any articles, and Melo aethiopica is a one-line stub with a large infobox and three images, so there's not really any room there.
Articles this image appears in
None (was: Melo aethiopica)
Previous nomination/s
FPC nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg
First delist nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg
Nominator
—howcheng {chat}
  • Delist — —howcheng {chat} 16:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Not used in article. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist if unused. --99of9 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Delist closing procedure

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

If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, perform the following:

  1. Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
    {{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
    • Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
  2. Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the top of the section.
  3. Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the Archived removal requests. This is done by simply adding the line {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}} to the bottom of the Retained section of the archive.
  4. Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.

If consensus is to DELIST, perform the following:

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

If consensus is to REPLACE, perform the following:

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



[edit] Recently closed nominations

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

[edit] Ecnomiohyla rabborum, take 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2012 at 16:40:38 (UTC)

Original – Ecnomiohyla rabborum (Rabb's Fringe-limbed Treefrog) in the Atlanta Botanical Garden.
Reason
I propose this about-to-be-extinct frog be given renewed consideration amid its recent near success.
Articles in which this image appears
Ecnomiohyla rabborum
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Creator
Brian Gratwicke
  • Support as re-nominator --Samsara (FA • FP) 16:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Still cool--GoPTCN 17:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Even though focus is on wrong eye to me. - Blieusong (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator last time. A very precious and rare image, truely a treasure for Wikipedia. I'll miss you, Rabbs' fringe-limbed treefrog. Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. A truly precious image of a near extinct animal. If this photo is of the last known specimen, strong support. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This photo was taken in 2011, before one of these frogs died. It could be the one who died in 2012, or the one who is currently the last known specimen. Tomer T (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The flash is harsh but there's plenty detail of the frog due to the sharp focus and high resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral as before. Pine✉ 08:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg --Julia\talk 18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Boulder Opal

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2012 at 11:13:13 (UTC)

Original – Boulder Opal, Carisbrooke Station near Winton, Queensland
Reason
encyclopedic and gorges.
Articles in which this image appears
Opal
FP category for this image
Gemstones
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --al (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral Good but not stunning; EV to Opal unclear (if Boulder opal existed, that would be a lot clearer). --Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support agree that if Boulder opal had its own article demonstrating clear EV then this might work for FP. Pine✉ 08:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Julia\talk 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Sulphur-crested Cockatoo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2012 at 10:40:09 (UTC)

Original – Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, Walking on grass in Tasmania, Australia
Reason
Nice Framing, High Resolution, encyclopedic.
Articles in which this image appears
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --al (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think we're seeing enough of the bird, and suspect Mr. Harrison thinks so, too. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
what do you mean? the bird is fully shown.al (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Except for the legs and tail, which are hidden in grass. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support JJ Harrison (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I did take this the other day, by chance. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I prefer that one over the nominated image, but they're so common in Australia that I think we could probably get one that shows all of the body. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 05:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above - it is indeed a super common bird and I think JJ can come up with something better :P The alt he linked to is great for the crest being so visible, but I think we can probably get the feet in too (eg File:Sulphur_Crested_Cockatoo_Nov10.jpg) --Fir0002 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are very common and often very friendly birds, so it's possible to take a much clearer shot. As a note, they'd be considerable EV in a shot of a large flock of cockatoos on the ground feeding. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Julia\talk 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Photo of the airport in Shangri-La, the mythical Buddhist paradise, that actually exists in Southern China, very very near to Tibet

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2012 at 21:15:36 (UTC)

Original – Shangri-la Airport (near to Tibet), Yunnan province, China
Reasons
  • It's used across all the wikipedias that have articles about this airport. Namely: English Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, Vietnamese Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia and Basque Wikipedia.
  • It adds significant encyclopedic value to all these articles
  • It's verifiable
  • It has a descriptive and complete description in several languages
  • No inappropriate digital manipulation
  • Good photo opportunity, taken at the right time of the day and at the right time of the year
  • High resolution, nice colours
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Others
Creator
Azylber
  • Support as nominator --Azylber (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Much too dark. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if properly lit it's still not a striking image; too cluttered for one thing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't say I agree about the clutter - there's nothing uneccessary in the picture and therefore it's a good representation of reality, however I also must agree it's too dark... gazhiley 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per aboveal (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, no problem :) it's dark, but this is what this place actually looks like! Azylber (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • All day? I could understand a dark-ish photo used to illustrate how dark northern Alaska is in the middle of the winter, but here we're trying to just provide a picture of the airport to the reader to get a good understanding of what the place looks like. Being dark doesn't really help the reader in that regard. Jujutacular (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Julia\talk 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


[edit] Cinnamon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2012 at 15:53:52 (UTC)

Original – Sticks of cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum) and its ground form.
Reason
Shows both the sticks and the powder form of cinnamon. For some time there has not been any addition to the food category.
Articles in which this image appears
Cinnamon, Portuguese India Armadas
FP category for this image
Food and drink
Creator
Lviatour
  • Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sorry. The focus is out and it's a little noisey. I think we can reasonably expect much better for a subject like this. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per J Milburn LOUD NOISES gazhiley 09:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The retouching hasn't done it any favours IMO. Per J Milburn, it isn't that sharp. And not particularly high res for a studio shot. Both the powder and sticks could be in sharp focus using stacking, or alternatively one significantly out of focus, but this photo is somewhere in between. Colin°Talk 11:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per aboveal (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Julia\talk 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Shakespeare Droeshout portrait

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2012 at 06:24:18 (UTC)

Original – The second and final state of the engraving called the Droeshout portrait
Reason
High quality image, very detailed
Articles in which this image appears
Droeshout portrait, Portraits of Shakespeare
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Martin Droeshout in 1623
  • Support as nominator --Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah, cool, I asked for this to be uploaded :) For what it's worth, though, I put it in the articles listed, but not seven days ago; come Wednesday, I was going to nominate it here, but didn't know if an IP could. Care to answer a long standing question? 86.185.178.114 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You're free to nominate an image without an account. The restriction is that your support as nominator won't count. Julia\talk 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too heavily cropped. There exists a lot more of Shakespeare's torso in this image; any featured version should include it. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Opposeper J Milburn al (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Julia\talk 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Great-winged Petrel

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:23:20 (UTC)

Original – Great-winged Petrel (Pterodroma macroptera), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
This petrel has a wingspan of around a meter. It breeds on a number of sub-Antarctic islands, and sometimes on the coasts of Australia and New Zealand. I think this is a very nice flight shot. I've rarely seen them on the water and my attempts from previous trips haven't been very successful.
Articles in which this image appears
Great-winged Petrel
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Sharpness/detail not quite as good as some of your other shots (presumably due to the highish ISO) but still very good. Nice angle on the bird. --Fir0002 03:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice picture of a very nice species. Also, this is my first edit on Wikipedia! IamReallyReallyCool৳@₤₭ —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Supporthigh q and nice frame al (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The size-hike proposal would make this ineligible as most of the megapixels derive from the rather generous framing. However, I think that proposal needs to be binned as it stands now anyway, so I'll support. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The "proposal", wherein 2/3rds majority has been interpreted as consensus doesn't take into account the tightness of the framing, I don't think. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Pterodroma macroptera in flight 3 - SE Tasmania.jpg --Julia\talk 18:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] John de Lancie

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 17:21:53 (UTC)

Original – John de Lancie, an American actor, in casual attire
Reason
Great quality portrait, high EV.
Articles in which this image appears
John de Lancie, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, The Return of Harmony
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
Unknown; owned and released into the public domain by John de Lancie
  • Support as nominator --Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I know these actor headshots are designed to concentrate on facial features and grab casting agents' attention, but it doesn't translate that well into a 'traditional' portrait. His hair being cut off is problematic IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Stronger oppose. The tight crop creates more problems than the hair. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am a big fan of these kind of shots released into the public domain/under free licenses, and I'd love to support. Frankly, though, of the three this is my least favourite. I would be potentially willing to support either of the other two, depending on resolution; I'm having a little trouble accessing them... J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Daniel Caseal (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Myrtle Warbler

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2012 at 18:43:25 (UTC)

Original – Myrtle Warbler (Dendroica coronata coronata), male, breeding plumage, Léon-Provancher marsh, Québec, Canada.
Reason
Good EV, composition and quality. FP in commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Myrtle Warbler
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Cephas
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Great resolution. I have no complains. Plus, this picture is already a FP in Commons. ComputerJA (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Jkadavoor (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose definitely blurry around the bird's chest area. Pine✉ 05:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Could benefit from fill flash, and stopping down a bit. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. And some sharpening. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Timid Support Could be a bit clearer, but has some potential. Oakley77 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Timid = weak?? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't understand that as weak. For a support to be 'weak', it should be stated clearly. If he didn't say 'weak', it shouldn't be regarded as such. If it was 'weak', I would have add this nomination to FPC urgents. Tomer T (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Read with the comment ("...has some potential") it sounds like a 'weak'. But maybe Oakley needs to confirm. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
          • If it's considered 'weak', I don't think it's a fair procedure. Tomer T (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is this nom waiting for? As far as I can see, it has the requisite support regardless of what 'timid' means. Looks like a promotion to me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Only 4.5 if timid means weak. I asked the user to clarify a while back and got a response from another user that I didn't know what to do with. See User_talk:Oakley77#Your vote at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess you interpret the voting system a little differently to me. I could be wrong in my interpretation but I thought the closer was supposed to count the total number of support votes (whether weak or full) needed to be 5 or more, then analyse support-to-oppose ratio (taking into account weaks here only) to see if there is a two-thirds majority to pass. Since there are six supports and a two third majority, I thought it was a simple pass. But I see your point if you count weak supports as 0.5 votes towards the minimum support votes required. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support excellent photo Azylber (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry Azylber, as per above, voting ended on the 12th of June... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Hi Diliff, sorry, I hadn't realised. My mistake Azylber (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Julia\talk 15:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2012 at 15:02:35 (UTC)

Original – A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains by Wang Ximeng (1113, 51.3 × 1191.5 cm), one of the largest paintings in Chinese art. The painting is in the permanent collection of the Beijing Palace Museum.
Reason
One of the masterpieces of old Chinese painting (interestingly, made at the age of 18).
Articles in which this image appears
Wang Ximeng
FP category for this image
Artwork/East Asian art
Creator
Wang Ximeng
  • Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --P. S. Burton (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Considering the dimensions of the painting, this image seems pretty small. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Not that it matters, but this should be interpreted as an Oppose. 600 pixels for a 51.3 cm tall painting isn't enough. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but would be nice to have a taller version of this image, maybe a delist and replace will happen in the future, but this is good enough for now. Pine✉ 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Makeemlighter. We can do better. upstateNYer 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Pine. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Pine. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Wang Ximeng. A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains. (Complete, 51,3x1191,5 cm). 1113. Palace museum, Beijing.jpg --Julia\talk 15:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Duladeo Temple, Khajuraho India

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2012 at 07:22:36 (UTC)

Original – Duladeo Temple, Khajuraho India, 2010
Reason
High EV, good angle, good quality
Articles in which this image appears
Duladeo Temple, Khajuraho India, Khajuraho Group of Monuments
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Sfu
  • Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support good EV, image sharpness isn't great but the angle and detail are very good. Pine✉ 05:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Great picture of a historic building. Love the colours - so striking. gazhiley 15:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Pine Spongie555 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nice shot.Sanyambahga (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Pine and Nice shot. al (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Khajuraho Dulhadeo 2010.jpg --Julia\talk 14:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Greencastle Harbour

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 02:10:13 (UTC)

Reason
I nominated this for deletion a while ago for copyright reasons, but you know Commons: it could be months. I think we should go ahead and delist it. In addition to the copyright problem (which is that there's no evidence that the underlying painting is free, just the digitization), EV seems low to me: it was originally supported in part based on its use in Greencastle, County Donegal, but it hasn't been used there in some years.
Articles this image appears in
Sheila McClean
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GreencastleHarbour 2004 SeanMcClean
Nominator
Chick Bowen
  • Delist — Chick Bowen 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Even if the license is actually correct, the artistic quality is quite low and the subject can be replaced by photo, which would bring much higher EV. Brandmeistertalk 20:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist because of the problematic licensing. I'm open to this having EV as a representative of the artist's work, but the licensing has to come first. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspended pending resolution of deletion nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Delisted

  • File deleted. Julia\talk 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


[edit] Sanderling

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 06:51:40 (UTC)

Original – The Sanderling is a small wader. It is a circumpolar Arctic breeder, and is a long-distance migrant, wintering south to South America, South Europe, Africa, and Australia.
Reason
High Quality, Nice Framing, Encyclopedic, composition and quality and Good EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Sanderling
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --al (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the interesting cases where the photo would be just below our minimum specs, but one that I would be willing to support in spite of that. Per-pixel sharpness is excellent. JJ, can you advise if this is downsampled at all? If so, maybe you just need to upload at original res instead. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I decided to reprocess this a bit better - it was decidedly a little rushed - I had about 100gb to go through at the time. All the resolution I had is there now too. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Per pixel sharpness is still excellent. I want your lens. Don't want to carry it though. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. Only minor gripe (and it is very minor) is I wish the background around the head was cleaner (as opposed to the OOF rock) --Fir0002 03:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, same. I didn't have so much flexibility though, as I was on a boat. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support agree with Fir0002 but this is very good overall. Pine✉ 06:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very good and nicely framed. Colin°Talk 11:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Promoted File:Calidris alba - Laem Phak Bia.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Southern Fulmar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:19:29 (UTC)

Original – Southern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialoides), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia
Reason
We only have a couple of images on Commons for this species. The Southern Fulmar breeds on the coast of Antarctica, moving north during the winter months.
Articles in which this image appears
Southern Fulmar
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
JJ Harrison
  • Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic al (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a little more contrast at the high end would help. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean exactly. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
      • On any but the best displays, the white areas show no differentiation. Unless this picture was taken under severe overexposure, some simple curves work should fix the problem. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Darker in highlight areas is what you are after? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes - I suspect you already did some highlight recovery, but maybe we can apportion some more contrast to those lighter areas? Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
            • No point with so little time to go now, sorry. I think what you describe would technically be a reduction in contrast, by the way. I intend to see if I see any more Fulmars on the sea in the next half dozen boat trips. If I don't see any, then I think I'll renominate the other image (which I feel ought to have passed anyway). JJ Harrison (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Independence or death

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2012 at 11:13:55 (UTC)

Original – "Independence or death!" Declaration of the Independence of Brazil by Prince Pedro on 7 September 1822. His Guard of Honor greets him in support while some discard blue and white armbands that represented loyalty to Portugal. Painting by Pedro Américo
Reason
This is a beautiful painting, one of the most iconic in Brazil, and it looks great in digital form
Articles in which this image appears
Independence of Brazil
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator
Lecen and Centpacrr
  • Support as nominator --Lecen (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose very dark al (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • support I think it's a very good image Azylber (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)



[edit] Jama Masjid, Delhi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2012 at 14:45:39 (UTC)

Original – Jama Masjid, Jama Mosque, Delhi India
Reason
Good quality, EV and resolution. Few Indian or mosque related FPs
Articles in which this image appears
Jama Masjid, Delhi, Old Delhi, Mughal Architecture, Mosque and some lists
Creator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim
  • Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 14:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Question how recent is this picture? Is it possible to get a picture with whatever work the scafolding is/was for complete? For something as temporary as scaffolding it would be a shame if we couldn't get a photo with the work finished ie with the scaffolding gone... If however that scaffolding has been there for a long time, and probably will be there a lot longer, then I would consider a support. gazhiley 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This was taken about a month ago but I have seen a few old photos with the similar construction supports. File:Jama Masjid-Delhi-India4282.JPG taken in 2009 had them. --Muhammad(talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
      • In which case then I Support as this is a good representation of the building then, and as far as I can see meets all criteria and is sharp etc. Thank you for checking up on my question. gazhiley 16:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above. When the scaffolding is removed it would be good to get an updated photo. Pine✉ 19:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It is pretty minor, but there is a stitching error maybe 50 pixels from the left and 1/5th of the way up from the bottom on the roof of the walkway thing. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a fan of the off-centre angle of the framing and midday lighting is very flat and uninspired - IMO there is really nothing about the shot to make it exceptional. File:Jama Maszid.jpg by contrast is a far more compelling shot (although sadly it is let down by poor image quality). --Fir0002 03:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually this was taken quite early, around 8 or 9 in the morning. --Muhammad(talk) 15:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • The shadows of the people would appear to be rather short...? --Fir0002 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That's surprising. According to my estimation, this was around 7:30 in the morning. I remember seeing people brushing their teeth in the ablution part of the mosque and pigeons being fed (done in the morning). --Muhammad(talk) 11:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ill shot angle al (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think the photo does a good job of portraying the subject and I don't think it has any major defects Azylber (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] IDF soldier put on tefillin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2012 at 03:07:06 (UTC)

Original – Israeli Jewish soldier wearing tefillin and praying during the Shacharit time prayer
Reason
I belive its a high-resultion of a picture to show the act of putting on tefillin and praying.
Articles in which this image appears
Tefillin, Jewish prayer, Religious Zionism, Shacharit
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology
Creator
Yoavlemmer
  • Support as nominator --
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with note that this image also appears in articles other than Tefillin, and the use in multiple articles helps to support its evaluation of EV here at FPC. Good EV and image quality. Pine✉ 05:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I have added the rest of the articles the picture is used in.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Re what Pine says - the position and future of the religious is also a hot current issue in Israel. NB: this photo illustrates what looks like a religious-Zionist Etzion-bloc-settler type . Plutonium27 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)




[edit] Suspended nominations

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


[edit] Sign painting

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2012 at 15:32:17 (UTC)

Original – Sign painters create a new sign on the walls of the Figueroa Hotel
Reason
Okay, this is one of those slightly left-field noms that some may like and some may not. As the article notes, sign painting as a craft has almost disappeared, with most signs now being done via computer generated machinery. I thought I was lucky not just to catch a traditional hand-painted sign in the process of being created, showing how they build up the sign, painting on the undercoat, outline, background, etc, but to also actually capture the sign-painters at work, with their paint buckets and equipment, safety gear, and so on. Not only was this article unillustrated, I had to create a new category for this on Commons. Good technicals, nice colours, and high EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Sign painting
FP category for this image
Not really sure; maybe it's one of those oddball Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other ones. Could be squeezed into Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others, though it's not really about the artwork.
Creator
jjron
  • Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Would just like to point out that following this nomination someone has sneakily nommed this for deletion on Commons without bothering to comment on it here. Perhaps someone else can decide whether to leave the nom open and vote away as usual, or suspend it pending resolution. It doesn't worry me either way, but I know some (many) people won't vote once they see that deletion warning, especially when they don't know how it came about. So I figured I better comment on it. If it is left open, then please do ignore it in how and whether you vote (and I realise that is easier said than done). --jjron (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that the decision on whether or not to feature should be independent of the investigation of its copyright status. That is why I did not bring it up here. Would you have preferred me to derail conversation here? Please don't cast aspersions on my temperament ("sneakily"). --99of9 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • As soon as anyone clicks to view fullsize they see the big deletion warning. Bammo, waste of time, ignore. It may not be derailing conversation here, it's totally stifling it. If you've got no idea what's going on, why would you bother voting? Or if you did vote, why would you give it fair consideration? You wouldn't. That's pretty obvious. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Hmm, I'm not sure that the decision on whether to feature should be independent of its copyright status at all. We regularly suspend noms based on clarifying these kinds of questions. I have no particular authority on Commons but I suspect that 99of9 may be right that it's a bit too derivative to avoid infringing copyright... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Just an idea, but why not contact the hotel to ask who the sign painters are, and ask if they would be happy to allow the unfinished sign to be used on Commons with a CC license? It's not going to rip their work off given that it's unfinished (and is presumably commissioned for that particular hotel anyway), and we could even include the name of the artists doing the work to give them a little 'inadvertent' plug. Win-win situation, potentially. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Just a wild guess, but I'm gonna punt that the artists are Walldogs.net, and I reckon they're getting an 'inadvertent' plug as it is. FWIW, can you copyright such an incomplete image? A portion of an incomplete image at that? At what point does copyright kick in? As soon as they look at the wall? As soon as they start the undercoat? Seems kind of like an abortion debate, and I'm not sure we should kowtow to overly officious interpretations of silly laws. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
              • As I understand it, any 'unique' artistic design, whether complete or incomplete, breathtakingly beautiful or ridiculously bad, is automatically copyrighted the moment it is created. There is no interpretation in this context, because I don't believe you have to justify what it is or its purpose, you just have to show that you created it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Oh, and re bowing and scraping to these businesses for their permission to take a photograph out in the city streets, it aint gonna happen. As it is I'm already donating my time, efforts, etc, etc, to create and upload these images. I'm not wasting more time and energy going to businesses on bended knee begging for the right to take a photo out in public. If other people find their motivation in getting these things deleted, then that's their right, even if I don't really understand them, and I don't really care. It's Wikipedia users that ultimately miss out. --jjron (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Calm down. You'd probably appreciate the care that we take to avoid infringing copyright if you were on the receiving end of it. Besides, you're missing the point. There's no law stopping you from taking a photo out in public. There are laws to stop exploitation of copyrighted works, and we're forced to release our images under commercial licenses so it makes it particularly difficult to justify publishing copyrighted images when we allow them to be reused commercially. If you're upset with that license, then you should direct your ire at Wikimedia rather than those who enforce agreed rules. I've tried to argue for non-commercial licenses before, but the Free Content movement tends towards ideological and doesn't seem to be interested in giving any ground to pragmatism. Anyway, I digress... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
                • BTW, for the sake of clarification, I should say that I know that even a non-commercial license wouldn't necessarily avoid breaking copyright on this kind of image, but it would probably appease the copyright holder knowing that at least it could not be exploited by a commercial entity. Still, you have a point, an unfinished work is not going to be exploited commercially regardless, is it? But it's not for us to second guess the copyright holder. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdraw. Clearly this has been trashed and won't be given a fair shot. Thanks. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • How about we suspend for now? I just emailed Walldogs (the sign painters) asking for permission. If they agree, I can't see any problem. I've never done an OTRS before, which I assume is the best way to make it 'official' but if they agree, I guess we can cross that bridge. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Most likely, the copyright is owned by whoever the advertiser is (or I suppose it would be a derivative work). I don't think Walldogs would be legally able to give permission for us to use it. I suspect this would be turned down by the OTRS volunteer even if Walldogs 'gave permission'. Jujutacular (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Just a thought, a close-up of a painter would possibly be a more engaging picture and the artwork becomes less significant and heavily cropped, possibly to the point where copyright is not an issue. If you take the nominated image, then cut-out from top-left (x=606, y=1162, w=400, h=600). I think that is a much better picture, though obviously a bit small for FP. However, if the deletion review goes against the whole image, I would like to know if such a crop would be OK and we'd still have something useful to illustrate the article. Colin°Talk 18:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspended pending resolution of deletion nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)




Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=503864021"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages