Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

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

Promoting an image

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

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

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

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

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

Delisting an image

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Step 1:
Evaluate

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

Step 2:
Create a subpage
For Nominations

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


For Delists (or Delist & Replace)

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


Step 3:
Transclude and link

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

How to comment for Candidate Images

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

How to comment for Delist Images

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

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

Editing candidates

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

Is my monitor adjusted correctly?

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

Current nominations

View over Gstaad

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 16:50:58 (UTC)

Original – View over Gstaad
Reason
Simply a beautiful view over Gstaad.
Articles in which this image appears
Gstaad
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
GstaadTourismus
  • Support as nominatorTbvdm (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nice photo, but size is borderline minimum requirement. Also, creator name may suggest a commercial uploader? --Janke | Talk 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Less than ordinary and doesn't show village at all well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)



Kifli in Serbian cuisine

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2018 at 08:24:34 (UTC)

Original – Kifli (Serbian cuisine)
Reason
good shot of Kifli
Articles in which this image appears
Kifli
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Petar Milošević
  • Support as nominatorPetarM (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No disrespect, but they don't look too appetizing, compared with the other photos in the article. --Janke | Talk 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Janke This is what healty food look like. In description you could read "Kifli made with spelt flour". So not wheat flour, and they taste very good. One might think they are overburnt, but they arent. Brown looking due to flour and eggs. --PetarM (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support For me is fine...--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks tasty enough to me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)



Portrait of the princess sissi in venice

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2018 at 19:13:46 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of the princess sissi in venice
Reason
is a important Portrait in Venice
Articles in which this image appears
Empress Elisabeth of Austria
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator
LivioAndronico
  • Support as nominatorLivioAndronico (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – the glare on the upper part of the canvas is distracting. It look like it can be removed with better lighting. Bammesk (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the original upload better!, I think it is more natural. Just my opinion. On a positive note: good EV and very good addition to the encyclopedia. Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)



Indian roller

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 15:30:10 (UTC)

Original – Indian roller (Coracias benghalensis benghalensis in Kanha National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg
Reason
High quality image. Illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Indian roller
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well executed technically, and a very good depiction of this species. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportDreamSparrow Chat 11:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)



Male sable antelope

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 15:21:40 (UTC)

OriginalSable antelope (Hippotragus niger). Adult male in the Tswalu Kalahari Reserve, South Africa
Reason
High quality image that illustrates article well. Current FP candidate on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Sable antelope
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – how about cropping out the left ~200px, it looks right-heavy IMO. Bammesk (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not for me. Image is perfect rule of thirds! Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – EV and good posture. Bammesk (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)



Midas blenny

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2018 at 13:18:59 (UTC)

Original – Closeup of a Midas blenny in a coral near the Andaman Islands, India.
Reason
High quality, good EV, good underwater photo
Articles in which this image appears
Midas blenny
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Creator
Jason Marks
  • Support as nominatorTomer T (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Question After Googling this, I just ask if the colours are true? Looks over-saturated, but I know depth affects underwater images so I don't know whether that's the right explanation. 15:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Charlesjsharp (talk)
    Looks like a mix of the effects of underwater color balance combined with Nikon's preferred colour balance which tends to be a bit more saturated than canon and sony.©Geni (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)



Khuha Kharuehat Pavilion

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2018 at 00:27:30 (UTC)

Original – Khuha Kharuehat Pavilion in Phraya Nakhon Cave, Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park
Reason
Compellingly shows the sun shining on the pavilion within its cave setting. Featured on Commons, 2nd place winner WLM 2017
Articles in which this image appears
Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park
FP category for this image
Probably Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others?
Creator
Janepop Atirattanachai (BerryJ/User:Jane3030 on Commons)
  • Support as nominatorPaul_012 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - If I'd ever learned to whistle, I'd do so.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support stunning image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic photograph. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Wow. (Suggest increase in size of pic. at Khao Sam Roi Yot National Park.)Sca (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – there are bright spots along the edge of the ceiling, for example at x,y=5525,1360 (relative to top left corner), perhaps stitching error of bracketed images? Also a fuzzy patch at x,y=3430,4020. I think the image can use a touch up. Bammesk (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Wow (too) --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportDreamSparrow Chat 11:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)



Wainui Falls

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 14:24:00 (UTC)

Reason
High quality, and a good photo for the new article at Wainui Falls (EV), I think that the framing is pretty good too.
Articles in which this image appears
Wainui Falls
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Places
Creator
Insertcleverphrasehere
  • Support as nominator – — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, no chance here, way too contrasty, highlights are totally blown. --Janke | Talk 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry,for above --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok I hear you guys. Not sure how to withdraw a nomination over here as this is my first submission, but I can see which way the wind is blowing here. Thanks for your input and this can be withdrawn/closed so as to waste as little editor time as possible. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth I attempted to recover the highlights but they're completely blown out, so it isn't possible. Sorry. nagualdesign 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
nagualdesign It was a very sunny day, so I should have underexposed it, oh well, live and learn I guess. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
It's awkward with water because reducing the shutter speed or aperture necessarily affects the quality of the image. Not being able to see the screen easily in full sun doesn't help either. I always take bracketed shots then see what I've got when I get home. It's great that these smartphone cameras can take photos at ISO 32 (my Canon only goes down to ISO 100) but I don't suppose it will go any lower. The solution is to use a neutral-density filter.link nagualdesign 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Wainui Falls Tyree Collection 1.jpg
Nagualdesign It looks like this problem isn't a new one for photographers attempting to catch a photo of Wainui falls on a sunny day. It is surprising how little the falls have changed in over 100 years. Are the FA criteria graded the same for old historical photos such as this one? Obviously this one is blown in the highlights too, but for the time it is probably a very good image. I can get a very hi-res scan for about $20 from the Nelson Provincial Museum if you think it is worth it. I could also request this photograph which is of the Wainui River along the track up to Wainui Falls (although there probably wasn't a track in those days), it isn't as over exposed. Both of these photos are currently added to the Wainui Falls article and give valuable historical context, so they have EV. What do you think? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I know more about photography than I do about the ins and outs of Featured Picture candidates, but perhaps someone else can answer your questions. nagualdesign 01:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • From the low-res version on Commons, there looks to be some detail in there. Might be worth it. Can't guarantee it, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)



Nominations — to be closed

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

Older nominations requiring additional input from users

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

Closing procedure

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

When NOT promoted, perform the following:

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

When promoted, perform the following:

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

Delist closing procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently closed nominations

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

Elena Runggaldier

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2018 at 05:51:19 (UTC)

OriginalElena Runggaldier (b. 1990) is an Italian ski jumper and Nordic combined skier, who represents G.S. Fiamme Gialle. She received silver in the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2011.
Reason
High quality image with good EV
Articles in which this image appears
Elena Runggaldier
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator
Ailura
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, technically quite good. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Technically average (soft focus) and distracting background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if 2 smudges removed (left of sunglasses). Vibrance could be added (optional). --PetarM (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    •  Done the dust spots.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you, please don't change the vibrance. --Ailura (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Charles' observation about the focus being a bit soft, but at anything other than full resolution this isn't noticeable. The good composition and the fact that it shows the subject in the context of her notability more than make up for this. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Per nom DreamSparrow Chat 11:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:20150201 1316 Skispringen Hinzenbach Elena Runggaldier 8340.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)



Academy of Athens

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 13:35:39 (UTC)

Original – The main building of the Academy of Athens, one of Theophil Hansen's "Trilogy" in central Athens. The Academy of Athens is Greece's national academy, and the highest research establishment in the country.
Reason
Very high quality, high resolution, good EV
Articles in which this image appears
Academy of Athens (modern)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Der Wolf im Wald
  • Support as nominatorTomer T (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – not that it matters, but at full size the distortion on the column mounted statue heads is a bit distracting. Bammesk (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --PetarM (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Akademie von Athen.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)



Lietava Castle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 13:29:37 (UTC)

OriginalLietava Castle from Lietavská Svinná. The Lietava Castle is an extensive castle ruin in the Súľov Mountains of northern Slovakia, between the villages of Lietava and Lietavská Svinná-Babkov in the Žilina District.
Reason
High quality, high EV, good panoramic picture
Articles in which this image appears
Lietava Castle
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Vladimír Ruček
  • Support as nominatorTomer T (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - needs to be cropped. Kaldari (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with Kaldari that it should be croped (mainly from left, a little on right) to focus more clearly on the structure. Plenty of pixels for that. (It can still be off-center, tho.) Sca (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - No need to crop. IMO, it's nice to have some of the surroundings, actually it improves EV. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree. Siting was a key consideration in the construction of castles, and as such the non-architectural aspects of the image are valuable.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
      • You could chop off at least 25% of the left side and it would still illustrate the surroundings well. Kaldari (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As currently cropped does not illustrate article well. Charlesjsharp (talk)
  • Support And 5...--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Lietavský hrad-východná strana.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Tooth and Tail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2018 at 05:53:50 (UTC)

Original – A screenshot of the real-time strategy game Tooth and Tail, in which the player assumes the role of a commander of an army of animals.
Reason
I think this image meets the FPC criteria because it is a copyright-free (though yet to be license reviewed on Commons. You can view the license here), good looking, high resolution screenshot that greatly benefits the article. The screenshot is invaluable to the article and has high EV because it shows the reader the HUD, the art-style, and some of the gameplay (structures, units, etc). Though the screenshot's shortest side is less than 1500px, all other featured video game screenshots are under, too. It is unlikely that a screenshot of higher resolution would be obtainable simply due to the limitations of the topic (x1080 and x1440 are the usual resolutions of monitors. x2160 is rare). This is my first featured picture nomination, so I apologise if I missed anything.
Articles in which this image appears
Tooth and Tail
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator
Pocketwatch Games, the developers of the game. Uploaded to Commons by Anarchyte
  • Support as nominatorAnarchyte (work | talk) 05:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Native resolution, so 1500px requirement unrealistic. I would consider the split screen seriously, as in my experience (albeit quite dated; I haven't been anything close to a serious gamer in a decade) split screen RTS multiplayer is very rare.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I did consider nominating the split screen screenshot (as you're right, split screen (in general) is rare nowadays) but in my opinion it's too crowded with the two HUDS. It also doesn't include the quest information present in the top left of this image as this is a screenshot of a single-player match while the other one is of a multiplayer one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --PetarM (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - GamerPro64 03:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)



Chartist meeting, 1848

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 22:18:58 (UTC)

OriginalChartist meeting on 10 April 1848 at Kennington Common by William Edward Kilburn.
Reason
Image of historic gathering in 1848, by notable photographer, restored.
Articles in which this image appears
Chartism, William Edward Kilburn, Kennington Park, Feargus O'Connor, and 5 more
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator
William Edward Kilburn, restored by Bammesk
  • Support as nominatorBammesk (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • weak oppose It doesn't transfer main concept. Lstfllw203 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • By "concept" I assume you mean: advocacy, reform movements. How well this image conveys the "concept" is debatable. I revised the article list above. This has been the lead image in two articles: Chartism (about 10 years) and William Edward Kilburn (3 years). It has EV in both. Bammesk (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Nice historical artifact, but image doesn't convey a particular theme or message. Sca (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Pretty hazy and blurry; while it's definitely better thanthe original, something like this with better color correction and artifact removal would seem like a better candidate. WiiWillieWiki 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • WiiWillieWiki, the original is here at the Royal Collection, which has the physical copy. We don't color-correct or crop images of historic works, if published by the museum or gallery holding the actual physical work. That would be original research. Bammesk (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)



Phineas Gage Cased Daguerreotype

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 18:42:19 (UTC)

Original – Photograph of cased-daguerreotype studio portrait of brain-injury survivor Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) shown holding the tamping iron which injured him. Includes view of original embossed brass mat.
Reason
After much work (documented on the file talk page) I believe this is now the finest quality hi-res version of this unique historical image available anywhere. Although it's only 811 × 952 pixels I have previously nominated another image under similar circumstances, which is now a Featured Picture.
Articles in which this image appears
Phineas Gage (Well worth a read!)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator
nagualdesign
  • Support as nominatornagualdesign 18:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I am Ok with a 1500px exception, it is historic + high EV, I like to support but have two reservations. 1- nom image is derived from a 436×504 pixel original [1], FP criterion 2 says "if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired." Are there any indications why a higher resolution is not realistic? (for example, does the OTRS email say anything, do we know how/where the original photograph is maintained at the university, is it in public display, etc.) 2- regarding the talk page discussion [2], what is the source of this: [3] high res upper body image? can it be uploaded to Commons with a copyright tag? Bammesk (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC) . . . Sidenote: we also have this image: [4] high resolution but not sharp. Bammesk (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I made an exhaustive search to find a larger image and the best I could find was this. As I discussed on the image file talk page it's undoubtedly a crop of the original photograph by Jack and Beverly Wilgus. No, I have not contacted anybody by email looking for a higher resolution source, I only looked online. According to the file description the original daguerreotype now resides at the Warren Anatomical Museum, Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School. I have no idea whether it's on public display. Although I haven't uploaded the original headshot used to make this image I did upload this, which is also used in the article. There are no hi-res images of the entire thing available, aside from this one. nagualdesign 01:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Currently we have an OTRS email/permission to use this low resolution image. The nominated image is also derived from this higher resolution version, so we need to know whether or not the higher resolution image can be licensed/uploaded on Commons. The permission section of this page says the copyright holder has sent Wikipedia an email, perhaps the content of the email can clarify things. Bammesk (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you're saying. My assumption was that since the high resolution image is undoubtedly from the same source it would be permissible under the same licensing conditions. Or rather, that using it as part of the enlarged image would be permissible. I've posted a request at the OTRS Noticeboard. You'll have to forgive my ignorance with this sort of thing. nagualdesign 05:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Sorry, the ticket does not address resolution or any other file.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
As I explained at the file talk page, the hi-res, cropped source image has the same provenance as the low-res, complete source image. They are undoubtedly one and the same, but one of them has been cropped and the other reduced in scale. So where does this leave us? nagualdesign 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign and Bammesk: Perhaps uploader @Brightbytes: could shed some light on this? I have also reached out via email.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff. nagualdesign 07:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The Creative Commons' view is that the licensing of a low-resolution work under a CC licence also grants that same licence to higher resolution copies of the same work.[5] We'll probably have to check whether CC was explicitly specified in the OTRS permission. That said, I don't think the "no higher resolution could realistically be acquired" clause can be considered satisfied without someone asking the Warren Anatomical Museum to determine if taking a new photograph is possible. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness for that! I was beginning to think the image would have to be deleted. I'll look into emailing the Warren Anatomical Museum. Whether they say yes or no, we're still going to end up with a good result. Thanks, Paul. nagualdesign 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I've written an email to Dominic Hall, the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum. nagualdesign 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Paul_012, Nagualdesign: That's a misreading of "same work". The word "work" refers to an image-file, not the physical daguerreotype, or the process of creating an image-file. In reading both [6] and [7], a CC license for A can be applied to B only if transforming A to B requires no application of expressive or original choices. In our case, the fine details of 2 cannot be created from 1 unless one applies expressive or original choices. Therefore 2 is a separate and distinct work in comparison to 1. The license for 1 doesn't apply to 2. An example: a license granting commercial use of a 100x100 pixel scaled-down less-detailed version of an image does not grant permission to profit from a 10000x10000 pixel more-detailed original version of the image. Bammesk (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's what the FAQ page says. What I read is that a CC license given to a scaled-down image will also apply to the original from which it was created, as long as no originality was involved in the scaling-down process. This was the subject of a bit of drama back when CC released the FAQ.
As it was demonstrated on the image talk page that 1 (downsampled) and 2 (cropped) are derived from the same original, they can be considered the same work (assuming cropping and downsampling doesn't involve originality). Of course, minus the frame the image would be a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain work of art, which would also be regarded as Public Domain for Wikimedia's purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Your last sentence settles it. Image 2 is in public domain [8]. I support the nom if image 2 is uploaded to Commons and tagged. In case the original wasn't published/distributed before 1923, then these tags should work: [9], [10]. BTW the museum doesn't allow photography [11]. Sidenote: What I read in [12] and [13] is that a CC license given to image-X will also apply to any image which is created from image-X, as long as no originality was involved in the creation process. It no longer matters for this nom though, with image 2 being in public domain. Bammesk (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't honestly say I understand everything written in the above 3 comments, but it sounds like were okay, right? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if someone else uploads the cropped, hi-res image and provides the proper licensing details, since I've been wandering through a few minefields recently and I haven't got the nerve to face another at the moment. Thank you in advance. By the way, I haven't heard back from the curator of the Warren Anatomical Museum, although I did suggest that he might contact the Commons directly and provided him with an email address, so he may have done that. nagualdesign 05:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)



Helleborus orientalis.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2018 at 13:53:01 (UTC)

Original – a caption for the image, providing adequate context for voters on WP:FPC
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the flower.
Articles in which this image appears
Helleborus orientalis
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
--Famberhorst (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as nominatorFamberhorst (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Eye-catching image; I have added it as the lead image in Helleborus orientalis because, unless things have changed since I used to be more active at FPC, it needs to have been in an article here for seven days. The previous image there was added by Casliber almost two years ago in January 2015 so pinging him to ensure he's aware I've changed it. I would have preferred an article with a bit more substance (regretfully, I don't know enough about the topic to do anything myself) but there is just about sufficient EV provided. Will support if it remains stable in the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hartelijk dank voor uw hulp.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clear crisp image of flower, composition nice too. Also better taxobox image....might just have to expand article now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we be sure that a specimen grown in the Netherlands accurately represents the species? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Answer: Helleborus orientalis with dotted flowers (the so-called 'Freckels') are often hand pollinated in the Netherlands because of the spots. This Helleborus orientalis is in my garden.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but Helleborus orientalis appears to be a commercially developed product in Europe with many different colours and cannot therefore be representative of the native species. The image that previously illustrated the article is green and from Germany so is not suitable either. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
What about if we change the label to "cultivated variety?" We (presumably) have Featured Pictures of dog and cat breeds (must check). what we have here is an obscure wild plant that has been bred and cultivated for centuries (much like a rose). I was planning on exoanding the article so we could show both pix FWIW...just hard to get info. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks fine, and if Cas ends up expanding this article and covering the commercial/hand-pollinated version, this will have even better EV.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - now further over the bar for EV after the expansion so far done by Cas (thanks!). SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --PetarM (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Helleborus orientalis. Lenteroos 04.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)



Female coastal topi (Damaliscus lunatus topi)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 10:57:28 (UTC)

Original – Female coastal topi (Damaliscus lunatus topi) in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda
Reason
Illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Damaliscus lunatus topi
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp

Promoted File:Topi (Damaliscus lunatus topi) female.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)



Long-tailed (or crab-eating) macaque

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2018 at 11:07:24 (UTC)

Original – Long-tailed (or crab-eating) macaque in Labuk Bay, Borneo
Reason
High quality image illustrates article well. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Crab-eating macaque
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. WiiWillieWiki 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What's with the teeth? I'd support something with a closed mouth, but the teeth are too distracting (and variable between specimens) for me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Needs to see a dentist. ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Chris. Distracting. Sca (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would have thought that the teeth being visible only adds to the EV. If anything it's a beautiful photograph (very high quality) of a rather ugly-looking animal (by human standards). I'm surprised that the lack of good dentistry is being used as a rationale. nagualdesign 06:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment So was I. Chris might wish to explain how he can can reject this nomination as "variable between specimens", yet approve the pink flower above when specimens can be blue or green! Reject by all means, but voters (especially the admin) should be consistent in their logic if the FP project is to have credibility. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't "reject" anything. I simply made a comment. And in case you missed it, my main problem was with this specimen's teeth.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is what the other !voters focused on. The teeth. You got comments about them on Commons too. I'm not sure how this is a surprise to you.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry Chris, you did as you say only comment not reject: but you did say "variable between specimens", hence my reaction. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not write "Oppose" in bold. I have no idea where you got the idea that anything other than a support is a rejection.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I apologisd for saying you rejected my nomination. Read what I wrote above. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @nagualdesign: The problem is not the visibility of the teeth, per se. The problem is the distraction they pose, which detracts from the aesthetics of the image. It's the same reason people frequently oppose images for having distracting backgrounds, even if technically the images are perfect.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Aesthetics? Be serious. Anthropomorphic judgmentalism has no place here! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think they're distracting in the same way that backgrounds are sometimes distracting, since they form part of the subject. They certainly draw your attention, but that is not the same as being distracting. I'd say it's the opposite. I expect that a crab-eating animal requires teeth like a can opener. As for the comments on Commons, the image gained unanimous support despite people's jokes about the teeth. Daniel Case's comment about the teeth was, "his teeth, while far from perfect, are better than the mountain gorilla's", and by that I think he was referring to this dentally challenged specimen (also a Featured Picture there). nagualdesign 01:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Gorilla is in no way dentally challenged. 100% healthy. It is quite dangerous to make this type of criticism if you are not at all familiar with the species. Blackened teeeth are typical for wild gorillas. Charlesjsharp 11:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Face-grin.svg "Dentally challenged" was just tongue-in-cheek remark, you plonker. It isn't a medical term, and I don't think it was even slightly dangerous. And I am reasonably familiar with the species, thanks. This isn't the nineteeenth century. Are you saying that the macaque's teeth aren't typical? nagualdesign 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aesthetically pleasing or not, I don't think this photo of this specimen is representative of the species in general. Sure, wild animals often have plenty of health conditions that alter their appearance, but unless I'm mistaken we usually try to feature photos of healthy and intact individuals. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --PetarM (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)



Ipomoea pes-tigridis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 08:34:35 (UTC)

OriginalIpomoea pes-tigridis is a species of Ipomoea and Convolvulaceae family. It is known as tiger's footprint due to the shape of leaf. It grows in roadsides and sea coasts which sea level is between 0 and 400 m.
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the Bud of Tiger's footprint.
Articles in which this image appears
Ipomoea pes-tigridis
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
Creator
AntanO
  • Support as nominatorAntanO 08:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. WiiWillieWiki 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would like to see a flower, not just an unopened bud. --Janke | Talk 18:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The plant is famous for the shape of it's leaves, and I'm not sure what this is a picture of, is it the bud of the flower? Either way, no EV for this plant. Mattximus (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Janke, Mattximus - I don't know how much you are aware of this plant. I have created Ipomoea pes-tigridis and I did not mentioned about this bud since I could not find source. But, I know the bud is unusual and sometime people think it as flower due to its shape. --AntanO 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose CA --PetarM (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)



Cirsium vulgare

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2018 at 01:24:24 (UTC)

OriginalCirsium vulgare is a species of the Asteraceae genus Cirsium, native throughout most of Europe, as well as parts of Asia and Africa. The thistle provides a great deal of nectar for pollinators.
Reason
High quality, very illustrative of the flower.
Articles in which this image appears
Cirsium vulgare
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
Famberhorst
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: You might have cloned out the spider webs... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me, I don't mind the spider webs. Mattximus (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support nice image, good EV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you Chris Woodrich for nominating my photo. Question: May I actually vote? Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC) PS: my electronic signature does not work on Wikipedia, but on wikimedia. How is that possible? I do write articles on Wikipedia.
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Mooie bloeiwijze van een Speerdistel (Cirsium vulgare) 03.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)



Firewheel (Gaillardia pulchella) in Aspen, Colorado

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 23:02:32 (UTC)

Original – Firewheel (Gaillardia pulchella) in Aspen, Colorado
Reason
Nice color, good quality, Valued Image and Quality Image on Commons
Articles in which this image appears
Gaillardia pulchella, Gaillardia
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator
Rhododendrites
  • Support as nominator – — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is it missing a petal or two? At least that's what it looks like... --Janke | Talk 12:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The small budding flower in the background shows similar signs. Looking here it is a common feature, not missing. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – good lighting, composition, has EV. Bammesk (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support but i suggest a crop --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Colorful image. Crop on left and bottom could be ideal IMO. --AntanO 08:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In agreement with AntanO Lstfllw203 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've added a note to the image. Is that the sort of crop you mean? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good, all in all. --Mhhossein talk 07:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoted File:Gaillardia in Aspen (91273).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)



Martyrdom of Imam Ali

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2018 at 12:12:38 (UTC)

Original – 'Martyrdom of Imam Ali' is a painting by Yousef Abdinejad depicting the assassination incident of Ali ibn Abi Talib by ibn Muljam, while Ali is saying prayer.
Reason
The file is large enough and of a suitable resolution. The EV is already presented in 'Assassination of Ali' where the painting is analysed. Among other things, the painter has tried to show a distinction between the assassin, ibn Muljam, and the target, Ali, by using suitable colors for each case.
Articles in which this image appears
FP category for this image
Paintings
Creator
Yousef abdinejad
  • Support as nominatorMhhossein talk 12:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like it is scanned from a printed page - unsharp at full size, and horizontal streaks all over. --Janke | Talk 16:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • It was painted on cardboard, which I think is where the horizontal bands come from. And while it is unsharp at full size (which is huge), it's pretty sharp at the minimum FPC resolution. Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A picture of a beautiful and artistic painting about an important historical event.--Mbazri (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment something doesn't look right, it looks awfully soft, like it was a scanned from a photograph in a book and not the painting itself. Is there any info on the source of this image? Mattximus (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: I found this high resolution version on the author's weblog. --Mhhossein talk 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful painting. --Gnosis (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Colorful painting nominated to the death of first shia Imam.Lstfllw203 (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)



Blueberries

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2018 at 09:04:56 (UTC)

OriginalBlueberries
Reason
good quality, replacing older image
Articles in which this image appears
Blueberries
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator
Petar Milošević
  • Support as nominatorPetarM (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Info Stable for a week, replacing older image by user Evan-Amos. I think embalage make too much. And some stack could be done. --PetarM (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)



Basilica (Oria) - Interior

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2017 at 20:30:01 (UTC)

Original – Basilica (Oria) - Interior
Reason
One of most beautiful church in Salento (Italy)
Articles in which this image appears
Oria Cathedral
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator
LivioAndronico
  • Support as nominatorLivioAndronico (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Technically not great. Slightly tilted; awkward framing, showing an excess of floor. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: honestly Paul_021 I do not see where it is tilted and I do not understand what you mean for "awkward framing" for the composition yes, maybe there is too much floor.Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Looked closer and you're right. There's not much of actual visible tilt; the perception is mainly from the imperfectly aligned pews. The altar rail also isn't horizontal, but that's probably in the architecture itself. I'm still bothered by the cut-off at the top though. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with Paul_021, bottom and crop above are not good. --PetarM (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)



Delist: Shona witch doctor (Zimbabwe)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2017 at 13:33:04 (UTC)

a suitable caption for the image
Reason
1. poor quality: over-exposed, and even burnt-out areas; 2. it's a tourist setup, and not a true depiction of the stated subject
Nominator
FunkyCanute (talk)
  • DelistFunkyCanute (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep impressive quality for 1989. Tomer T (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Good quality for 1989. Did you even bother contacting Hans Hillewaert, who took the image, or Tomer T, who nominated the image? (per the instructions)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did "even bother". Why the rudeness? FunkyCanute (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Lets see, a) you waited a grand total of one day after this ran on the main page to nominate, b) nominated by essentially claiming that everyone who supported the original nomination on Wikipedia and on Commons was blind ("exceptionally poor quality", as if this were somehow worse than or on par with the images in this article), c) did not provide any source for your claim that "it's a tourist setup", and d) have yet to notify User:Lycaon, the photographer, despite the explicit statement that you must do so that pops up every time you create a delist nomination. When you ABF and fail to follow clear instructions, you will receive a less than stellar reception.
As for your quality concerns, this image was taken in an equatorial area on a bright clear day with a relatively reflective surface. Even with modern equipment, it's difficult to strike a good balance between shadows and highlights in such conditions, let alone with the amateur cameras of 1989. The blown highlights are limited to the reflection on the man's face and the feathers on his belt, which combined represent less than 1% of the total image area. Blown highlights are acceptable, to a certain extent, in FPs. File:Wat Phra Kaew by Ninara TSP edit crop.jpg, for example, passed FPC unanimously four months ago despite very prominent blown highlights on the reflective surface of the temple (spire?). FPC reviewers are generally able to recognize the technical limitations of a shot, and !vote accordingly.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Still doesn't explain the rudeness. Just adds to it. I saw it on the main page and nominated then. It is obviously not as bad as those to which you link, and which are clearly not worthy of comment. I disagree with the original nomination and support: that's how Wikipedia works. I know enough about photography to know that even in 1989 you could take photographs of better quality in midday sun. These days (for the last 10-20 years?), with the ability to post-process digital files, I'd have expected a much higher threshold for acceptance as a mainpage feature pic. No, I haven't provided evidence that it's a tourist setup, but it is obviously so to anyone who has travelled in Zimbabwe. As it happens, I have similar pictures, which I took in 1983 (albeit of even worse technical quality). Finally, my recollection is that the nominator must inform either the photographer or the original nominator: that is, in fact, what you've said above. I chose to inform the latter. If that was an error, there are polite ways to instruct me otherwise, for example: "you haven't told the photographer, you need to do that." or, if you're a really good sort, "Hey, please advise the photographer of your nomination". You're at fault: there's no excuse for rudeness. A simple apology would suffice. Have a great day. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I specifically stated "Equatorial area" at noon, on a sunny day. Cameras handle that far differently than something at 50 degrees north/south (as I noticed very quickly during trips to Canada and Australia, my main base of operations being Indonesia). Even modern cameras will have trouble with images of reflective surfaces at equatorial areas, at noon, on a sunny day. They will either blow the shadows (assuming one compensates for the highlights) or blow the highlights (assuming one compensates for the shadows). Or perhaps you have a recent image you wish to offer as proof? I've already shown one example, from a higher latitude.
I am not going to apologize for something you perceive as rude, especially when it was not intended to be so. I perceive your statement that this image is of objectively poor quality (and implication that 15 unanimous reviewers in two nominations were incompetent), your unwillingness to actually provide a reference for your other claim, and your lack of an even pro-forma notification to the photographer (whose work you are commenting upon) downright insulting, but I am not asking for or demanding an apology, as I expect you did not intend to be rude or insulting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagreement does not in any way suggest that I consider anyone to be incompetent, and it cannot follow that it is de facto insulting. If that were the case, no collaborative endeavour would be possible. Let me make it clear, I don't consider anyone to be incompetent who has remarked upon this image. No one has asked for supporting evidence, but I have said that I'm unable to provide it. That I am unable to offer it cannot reasonably be considered insulting. I wish I could provide evidence. I haven't informed the photographer for the reasons mentioned above. Since you haven't disagreed with my understanding of the due process, I will take it that I have indeed correctly followed it. To consider my following of procedure insulting seems curious. "Did you even bother..." is unequivocally rude, and you have admitted that it was intended as such: "...you will receive a less than stellar reception". But having said "When you ABF and fail to follow clear instructions...", you have failed to counter my statement of my understanding, thereby suggesting that your very premise for your unpleasant response was misplaced. You, sir, are rude. FunkyCanute (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


Suspended nominations

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=820915314"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA