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 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
‹See Tfd›view · edit

Current nominations

Red-legged seriema

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 16:37:02 (UTC)

OriginalRed-legged seriema (Cariama cristata) from Brazil
Reason
The beauty of this bird is all in the head. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Red-legged seriema seriema List of birds of Brazil
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Another finely detailed shot of an interesting avian species. Sca (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)



Castle of Zafra (Guadalajara)

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 01:07:18 (UTC)

Original – The Castle of Zafra is a 12th-century castle located in the municipality of Campillo de Dueñas, in Guadalajara, Spain. Built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop in the Sierra de Caldereros, it stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory.
Reason
High quality. Gives a stunning view of the castle and its surroundings.
Articles in which this image appears
Castle of Zafra (Guadalajara)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Diego Delso
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Illustrates the castle and location well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Historically interesting. (Could be cropped a bit tighter on both sides.) Sca (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • | I wouldn't crop - I think the surroundings are important. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)



The Westminster Bridge with the Westminster Palace in the background

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 23:59:57 (UTC)

Original – The Westminster Bridge with the Westminster Palace in the background.
Reason
Found this while reading up on the most recent incident overseas (well overseas for me anyway); this image struck me so I thought I ought to list it here to see if it had a chance at an FPC star. Presently this image adores the article Westminster Bridge, where it holds the distinguished place of honor as the lead image in the article's infobox.
Articles in which this image appears
Westminster Bridge
FP category for this image
I think probably Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Commons User:Martin Dunst
  • Support as nominatorTomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Could benefit from a bit of shadow work... --Janke | Talk 07:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose Unfortunately does not illustrate the subjects well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Poor lighting, shadowy. It's not bad as a mood shot and would be fine as an additional photo at Westminster Bridge, but a lighter, more conventional photo would be better in the infobox there. Sca (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)



The Horse in Motion

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2017 at 04:40:42 (UTC)

OriginalSallie Gardner at a Gallop, photographic sequence by Eadweard Muybridge of a horse in motion
Reason
One of the most famous photo series of all time and an important precursor to the development of motion pictures.
Articles in which this image appears
Eadweard Muybridge, Sallie Gardner at a Gallop, Scientific method, Leland Stanford, Horse gait
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator
Eadweard Muybridge
  • Support as nominatorKaldari (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Would need a lot of restoration before I could support. --Janke | Talk 10:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Janke and Adam Cuerden: In cases like this where we have an article about the photograph itself (rather than the subject of the photograph), is it appropriate to do restoration? Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I did some very light restoration on the image. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I think the answer is yes, unless the article was about a particular copy (a specific print). I would support if obvious artifacts are cleaned up, for example the four corners, the vertical ink mark in the text area, several obvious spots on frames 1 and 2, and similar obvious spots elsewhere. By the way, I think adjusting the levels of frame 8 as was done here is a bad idea (the print is an integrated piece, not a collection). Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC) . . sidenote: based on what I have seen here at FPC, restoration of historic works should 1-retain artifacts that are an integral part of the original work, 2-retain any purposeful-and-material additions made such as signatures, stamps, or such, 3-retain the historic technical integrity of the image, such as color, texture, etc.
  • Comment - this is a photograph of a print, and not one in good condition; I strongly suspect that a cleaner version of the print may exist somewhere, which would mean a much better version of this would be possible. I initially thought this image, while much lower-resolution, showed one; however, while they are similar, they aren't identical, and I am curious to know which is the earlier. (The smaller image actually looks more like photographs - this one looks like it has been traced. This matches with the smaller image having 'The negatives ... are absolutely "untouched"' in its footer, which is missing from this version.) TSP (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @TSP: My understanding is that this is the original version of the photo set (i.e. the first version that was published). The negatives were "touched up" to make them work better as illustrations, but when Muybridge showed them to the press, they complained about the fact that they were touched up. He then went back and published the original versions from the negatives (thus the weird 'The negatives ... are absolutely "untouched"' disclaimer on the other image). A later similar photoset (of a different horse) was published much more widely in 1887. As to whether a better print exists of this original version, I have no idea. This is definitely the best copy available on the internet. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That makes sense - nevertheless images like this one, while much lower-resolution, seem to offer tantalising hints that cleaner prints are out there which could be photographed. TSP (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
        • The nominated image comes from the Library of Congress, one of the most reliable sources for this kind of print. A cleaner print from a lesser source isn't necessarily a better starting point, unless its details match up exactly with the LOC copy, and that would be unlikely to come by. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportJobas (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


OREOS!!!!!

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2017 at 01:28:25 (UTC)

Original – Two Oreo cookies
Reason
I think the title says it all :)
Articles in which this image appears
Oreo, Sandwich cookie, List of cookies
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Food_and_drink
Creator
Evan-Amos
  • Support as nominatorTomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – too saturated and sugary. Bammesk (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC) . . Support – but as a picture. Bammesk (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This image (or versions of it) has been in the infobox at Oreo for years. How does it now "add significant encyclopedic value" to the article? Underwhelming. Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't quite understand the first argument. What does an image being nominated following years of stable usage (which surely indicates EV) have to do against it being FP-worthy? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
      • It is indeed no reason for an oppose, and indeed stability (especially for an easily photographs subject such as this) is actually a sign that an image is recognized as having good EV. Sca has, for almost three years now, applied his own criteria to judging images, and become confrontational when asked to stick to the criteria. I can't see him changing any time soon.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
In this usage, Mr. Crisco, anytime should be one word. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Tell that to The Times and The Washington Post. Or, even better, use your time to read, take to heart, and learn to apply the FP criteria rather than waste time debating grammar when your behavior is questioned.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I concede that some sources identify anytime as an Americanism (dating from the 1920s), and as such it's apparently eschewed in Britain/UK, etc. However, I would point out that any time can convey the negative, as in "he didn't have any time to waste," whereas, per Webster, anytime soon means in the near future, as you intended – or as a certain U.S. politician intended Friday in commenting on the failed health-care bill. Sca (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I'd much rather prefer an image that showed some shadows, like File:Amplang from Kotabaru, South Kalimantan 2015-05-23 01.jpg. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Different photographer, different approach. Evan Amos has never used a shadow in the years that I've been enjoying his photography. I prefer to have at least some shadow in my own photographs (though I'm out of practice; I haven't done product photography since my son was born). Others, like Colin, may use a "floating" approach, or may have a reflection of the item (see Clothes iron) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Fair points, but to me floating Oreos still somehow feel stranger than floating video game consoles. Not sure why. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Some sense of scale would be nice, like File:Amplang from Kotabaru, South Kalimantan 2015-05-23 01.jpg, but it's not worth opposing over that, it's a fine picture otherwise. Mattximus (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mattximus: open the image and click this link, then lemme know if it helped :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per other - Jobas (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, oh yes. Clear and candid. Brandmeistertalk 22:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
A candid cookie? Is that like a bluff biscuit? Sca (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Embassy Court

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2017 at 09:14:20 (UTC)

Reason
High quality and resolution images of a famous early modernist building. I think the choice of lens and composition highlights the lines and architectural idea behind the building.
Articles in which this image appears
Embassy Court
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Arild Vågen
  • Support as nominatorArildV (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportJobas (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose From looking at the other images in the Wikipedia article, this image (taken too close to the building) distorts the architectural design. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Saffron finch

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 19:56:05 (UTC)

Original – A male saffron finch (Sicalis flaveola) from the Pantanal in Brazil
Reason
illustrates the bird very well
Articles in which this image appears
Saffron finch List of birds of Brazil
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I'm just mad about saffron. Xcllnt detail. Sca (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Someone said she's mad about you, but I wouldn't bet on it... 22:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Quite nice.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportJobas (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me. Mattximus (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


Katherine Wallace

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 14:30:03 (UTC)

Original – Katherine Wallace, Australian actress
Reason
professional quality portrait
Articles in which this image appears
Katherine Wallace
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator
work for hire by Peacemaker Photography, uploaded by Amandadoyle543
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Highlights look a bit blown, and rather pink. Distracting background. Image added to article only today. Sca (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Are we happy about previous copyright concerns on this image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I rather like this photograph, actually. I'm just concerned that the focus is just a little off. I'm thinking the camera focused on her nose rather than her eyes or face, and so her eyes and face are slightly OOF.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportJobas (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Nice find, but wouldn't mind slight reduction of highlights. Brandmeistertalk 22:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)



Pripyat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2017 at 14:21:25 (UTC)

Original – Pripyat, deserted city evacuated after the Tchernobyl disaster
Reason
high quality image of this infamous city
Articles in which this image appears
Pripyat
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator
IAEA, uploaded by Yann
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good EV but there is too much lens distortion (tilted buildings). Bammesk (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per BammeskJobas (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Bammesk, Jobas: I corrected the perspective. I hope that fixed the issue. Thanks for your reviews. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Much better, I removed my vote but I think it is still technically underwhelming. The horizon is curved, there is no natural feature to justify the curvature, so I think it is the lens distortion again (similar to barrel distortion). The overall lighting is a bit flat, increasing the brightness and contrast can help. Bammesk (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for the hell of it. I've put oreo's up for FPC consideration, I can back an abandon town. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (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 March 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 March 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.

Hummingbirds of Trinidad and Tobago

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 18:15:36 (UTC)

Original – A composite of four common hummingbirds of Trinidad and Tobago
Reason
A captioned composite is a good way to show the variety of Hummingbirds
Articles in which this image appears
hummingbird Natural history of Trinidad and Tobago List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)



IAEA Experts at Fukushima

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 17:07:52 (UTC)

Original – IAEA Experts at Fukushima
Reason
High quality image which shows quite well the state of the place 4 years after the disaster.
Articles in which this image appears
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, Timeline of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator
IAEA, uploaded by Yann
  • Support as nominatorYann (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - bases on the very poor framing (person cut off on the left), and questionable EV. Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This is not a time and place where it would be possible to pose. Obviously time is very restricted in such a place, and people are moving, so I don't understand your objection. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 06:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Is this "the best Wikipedia has to offer"? Hardly. --Janke | Talk 08:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Janke, it is certainly one of the best images of workers in a dangerous radioactive place. Yann (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing special at all. Also, aren't they visiting experts, not workers? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Jumbled composition. Marginal EV. Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I do understand the nominator's sentiments but unfortunately I'm forced to agree with the "marginal EV" crowd. There's nothing about this image that provides any special insight into the disaster. The masks and suits look scary, but ultimately about on par with what you'd expect the workers there to be wearing. In fact, the orderly and calm poses actually convey a sense of complacency, as if the conditions are nothing to be alarmed about. Sorry, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Juliancolton: This comment makes me wonder if you understand what you are talking about? I expect these people to be trained professionals, not clowns running mad around. So being calm and attentive is certainly what is expected from them... Yann (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per other – Jobas (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Olympia Rupes water ice layers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 08:42:02 (UTC)

OriginalHiRISE image of exposed water ice layers in Olympia Rupes.
Reason
High-resolution image of water ice layers in Planum Boreum's Olympia Rupes, a subject of scientific interest in the understanding of the past climate of Mars.
Articles in which this image appears
Climate of Mars, Planum Boreum
FP category for this image
Space/Understanding
Creator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) / Jet Propulsion Laboratory / University of Arizona
  • Support as nominatorPhilip Terry Graham 08:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Leaning to support. In reading the file description I think the depicted width is 1832 meters, is that correct? I think adding the width to article captions is a good idea. A TIFF file is available from the source, converting it to JPG gives a larger, less lossy, file size. Bammesk (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a larger file and added the width to file description and article captions. Support. Bammesk (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 06:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportYann (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportJobas (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:PIA21465 - North Polar Layers.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Polar bear

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2017 at 04:53:42 (UTC)

Original – After successfully hunting a bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), a polar bear (Ursus maritimus) starts feeding on his North of Svalbard, Norway.
Reason
High quality image, very useful for both the species article and the act of predation
Articles in which this image appears
Polar bear; predation
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
AWeith
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Very valuable shot, but unfortunate that the head is not in focus. Despite the small size, it did get through Commons FP with good support. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportYann (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - plenty sharp enough for practical purposes IMO. I'd love more resolution but I understand that the conditions likely required significant cropping even with a 600mm lens. At this distance, I think it's amazing the photo is as sharp as it is, actually. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Amazing? A 600mm lens on a tripod + EOS5D body is more than capable of delivering sharp images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure it is - I've taken a photo or two myself, believe it or not. :) It just requires special skill on the photographer's part and relatively cooperative conditions. That's a lot of atmosphere to be shooting through, even in cold and clear environments. And for what it's worth, the lens used was apparently the Tamron 150-600, which, while an excellent lens, conventional wisdom would suggest is not quite as sharp at the long end as would be a 600mm prime. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 06:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Difficult shot, perhaps from a ship, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of using a tripod. Could be sharper, but a rare moment with this kind of detail. In my opinion... --Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportJobas (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) with its prey.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Post refit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 10:59:59 (UTC)

Original – USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Underway at sea, circa 1988-91. She is pictured here following her refit and rebuild after being recalled for duty in the 1980s as part of the US Navy's 600-ship Navy program. Official U.S. Navy Photograph, from the collections of the Naval History and Heritage Command.
Reason
Welcome to the gun show :) But seriously, this is a large image of a famous battleship that now meets size requirements and adorns a number of our pages (note I said pages, not articles). As the last of the recommissioned battleships in the Iowa-class this photograph captures a now obsolete gunship for the last time, and as an interesting side note also happens to capture the first deployment of the Block 1 variant of the US Navy's Phalanx CIWS. Listing here for FPC consideration and asking for a small degree of leniency since the battleship in question won't be returning to the high seas.
Articles in which this image appears
USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Armament of the Iowa-class battleship National Register of Historic Places listings in Norfolk, Virginia
FP category for this image
Given the absence of action here I'd say Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator
United States Navy
  • Support as nominatorTomStar81 (Talk) 10:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportJobas (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – This decades-old official photo appears to have led the infobox at USS Wisconsin for years. Contrast between the deck and gun turrets/superstructure isn't great. Sca (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Lots of noise and other marks.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I can not argue that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Very tight crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yet another non-committal drive-by comment, but I think the scan has too much resolution relative to the available detail in the print. When you magnify at full res, it gets quite muddled and gives you the sensation of looking at a very out-of-focus image. I believe the image would actually be more useful if it were downsampled a bit... which is ironic since your last nomination more than a decade ago failed because the image was too small. :) – Juliancolton | Talk 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What are you drivelling about in saying "another non-committal drive-by comment"? And before rubbishing my contribution, why not read the FP guidelines that say "Images should not be downsampled" Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't say anything about you Charles. Lots of people have been making comments without declaring support or oppose, and I followed suit, not yet knowing which way I'd like to vote. Stop acting like a child at FPC, please. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You made the comment directly underneath my post, so grow up and apologise. Making comments "without declaring support or oppose" is part of the process - in this case a wider crop might have been available, so I should not oppose right away. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ...well, yes, newer comments are typically posted at the bottom. That's how Wikipedia discussion threads have always worked. Be assured that if I wanted to reply to you I would have placed an indented comment below yours. I never criticized you or anyone else. Time to take a break perhaps? – Juliancolton | Talk 18:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks good when viewed at half size. I would support if downsized to 50%. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp, in reading your comment above, FP criteria doesn't say "Images should not be downsampled", it just says 1500px minimum and larger sizes are preferred. I am generally against downsampling, but this being a retired ship (in some ways a historic photo), I would be Ok with it, just my opinion of course. Bammesk (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It doesn't on Wikipedia's FP Criteria page, you are right, my quote was from Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Blue Lake (South Australia)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2017 at 02:33:20 (UTC)

Original – Mount Gambier's Blue Lake, taken in late-December of 2016. Image is taken from a peaked viewing platform to the North-West of the lake.
Reason
High quality image of an important South Australian landmark that offers the reader a visual to associate with the topic.
Articles in which this image appears
Blue Lake (South Australia)
FP category for this image
Landscapes
Creator
HeyJude70
  • Support as nominatorThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question Two things. Would the image be better without the tree on the right? Second, and apologies if I'm wrong, but is there some issue with the water where I've annotated the photo? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Clone out the "levitating" tree top at right! However, use the original, not the brightened version, since there are quite a bit of compression artifacts in the water, already. I'll check in later and see if it's supportable... --Janke | Talk 14:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Weak Support after the fix. --Janke | Talk 07:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid - it's a decent representational picture of the subject; but compression artefacts are quite visible even downsized; lighting isn't amazing; and the crop seems very tight at both the bottom and the right margins (I think this was made worse by the tree removal, incidentally - I think it would be better to use a clone tool to remove this, as Janke suggested, rather than re-crop). Also, the lake seems to be known for its seasonal "vibrant cobalt blue" colour, which doesn't really seem to be shown here; unless it's the other photos on the article that are misleading. Probably none of these would be a dealbreaker alone, but I'm not convinced this sits alongside the other photos in Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes. TSP (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per TSP - Jobas (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Pedestrian crossing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2017 at 22:52:57 (UTC)

Original – A pedestrian crossing on Market Street at Third Street, San Francisco, as seen from One Kearny St.
Reason
Who says the mundane can't be made magical? A very striking use of lines and an overhead view to depict the concept of a pedestrian crossing
Articles in which this image appears
Pedestrian crossing
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle, maybe?
Creator
Dllu
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as photographer -- dllu (t,c) 03:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this as fulfilling FP criteria. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ditto. Lacks EV, visual interest, focus. Sca (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looking at this other image: [1] things seem to be perpendicular, so I wonder if there is excessive software manipulation (i.e. adjustment) in the horizontal direction? (I don't mean vertical perspective adjustment). Bammesk (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC) . . . The painted areas on asphalt are perfectly square, so that doesn't look like excessive manipulation. Interesting photo and subject.... Bammesk (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC) . . . Never mind, google earth shows the intersection isn't perpendicular. I am Ok with this nom, so Support. But as suggested in the commons nom I prefer something like Shibuya crossing if it was nominated. Bammesk (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the shape of the intersection; it is very distracting and confusing (see above). --Janke | Talk 20:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - seems there's nothing that satisfies "EV" except birds and old money. Meets all the criteria. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an excellent photo artistically, but the composition seems somewhat cluttered for FP status. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I like the picture too, as a work of art and symbol of culture. But the mess of overhead wires, tracks, road markings, and a different pavement coloring of the crosswalk, is very distracting. Additionally, while the diagonal crosswalk is fine, the image is off-centered, with there being slightly more of the road to the right of the crosswalk's top right corner than to the left of the crosswalk's bottom left corner. I wouldn't oppose it—it has merit on its own—but I'll leave the discussion to other !voters. epicgenius (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Janke - Jobas (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per Julian above. – Yann (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support lNeverCry 07:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. For the purpose of illustrating pedestrian crossings in general, I'd prefer an image of a regular intersection with right angles. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Giant kingfisher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 12:15:25 (UTC)

Original – This female giant kingfisher (Megaceryle maxima), having speared a tilapia, smashes it against a post to break its spline so it can swallow it.
Reason
composite showing how this kingfisher handles a big catch. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears
Giant kingfisher, Kingfisher, Tilapia
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Great action sequence.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support nice description Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Chris. (Now, where's the Pepto?) Sca (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Jobas (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – The left image is narrower than the others, can that be remedied? The backgrounds are different, is that because of change in camera position? Bammesk (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Left hand image sorted. Yes, the boat I was in was moving. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Giant kingfisher (Megaceryle maxima) female composite.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Yellow-billed oxpeckers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 12:24:07 (UTC)

Original – Yellow-billed oxpeckers (Buphagus africanus africanus) perch on a zebra's back, waiting for insects
Reason
Symmetry of the composition with the zebra skin as foreground
Articles in which this image appears
Yellow-billed oxpecker, Oxpecker, Plains zebra
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - could do with a bit more contrast IMO but very nice shot. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Happy to adjust contrast if there's a consensus. All our monitors are a little bit different. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support nice camouflage Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • SupportBammesk (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Jobas (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Yellow-billed oxpeckers (Buphagus africanus africanus) on zebra.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Crown of the Andes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2017 at 01:07:59 (UTC)

Original – The Crown of the Andes, a votive crown originally made for a larger than life-size statue of the Virgin Mary in the Cathedral of Popayán, Colombia. It was made between the 16th and 18th centuries. It contains 450 emeralds, including some that were purportedly taken from the captured Inca Emperor Atahualpa (1497–1533).
Reason
The Met has started licensing their photographs of PD works with a CC-0 license. Among the thousands of images included is this beaut, of the Crown of the Andes. High quality, good EV.
Articles in which this image appears
Crown of the Andes
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
Creator
Metropolitan Museum of Art
  • Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Good EV, good picture, easy nom. Mattximus (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Good Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Minor caption issue - article says 16th century, not 17th. TSP (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Museum says "Ca. 1660 (diadem) and ca. 1770 (arches)". Source for the 16th century says "example of the work of 17th-century Spanish goldsmiths" but also that "the little cross supported by the orb, the earliest part of the confection, probably dates from the 16th century." Sources seem to agree on this being a 17th-century work, despite the oldest piece presumably dating to a year before the 17th century.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Even that source says it dates partly from the 16th century. It just seems problematic to me that we have an article caption saying "It dates, at least partly, to the 17th century" for the lead image of an article whose lead describes the item as "Originating — at least partly — in the 16th century".
        While these aren't technically contradictory, I'd suggest that one needs revising; and that it would be better to achieve consensus at the article rather than in an image caption. Personally I'd still support the "at least partly to the 16th century" wording - the point is that the crown is traditionally dated to the 16th century, but Christies say it only dates partly from then - i.e. everyone agrees it has an origin in the 16th century, but not exactly how much of the current structure dates back to then.
        I also think this phrasing would normally be used to give the earliest date - it would be technically true to say "The Tower of London, which dates at least partly from the 21st century", but I don't think anyone would. TSP (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - great picture, great EV. TSP (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Jobas (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Brilliant candidate. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Promoted File:Crown of the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception, known as the Crown of the Andes MET DP365520.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:00, 16 March 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=772664746"
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