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
view · edit

Current nominations

Jumping proboscis monkey

Voting period ends on 10 May 2017 at 09:51:23 (UTC)

Original – A composite image of a young male proboscis monkey learning to jump
Reason
High EV. We observed the adults in a family of proboscis monkeys jumping between these two trees. They went round and round, repeating the jump. Over a period of 15 minutes, the adults encouraged the youngsters to make the jump. This young male was one of the last to commit. Very positive voting for Commons FP. Image voted into second round of Commons Picture of the Year.
Articles in which this image appears
Proboscis monkey
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator
Charles



Hook echo

Voting period ends on 9 May 2017 at 20:40:46 (UTC)

Original – A Doppler on wheels image of a tornadic thunderstorm near La Grange, Wyoming (USA) captured during the VORTEX2 project. In the velocity image on the left, Blues/green represent winds moving towards the radar, and reds/yellows indicate winds moving away from the radar. The reason that some of the darker blues contain red/yellow within them is a trait known as Aliasing, where the winds are moving faster than the radar can detect. In the reflectivity image on the right, the main body of the storm can be seen, with the appendage on the bottom of the storm being a hook echo, which is associated directly with the tornado, and the tornado circulation itself can be seen as the doughnut like shape in the later part of the animation.
Reason
High quality, high EV, and adds significantly to its article.
Articles in which this image appears
Hook echo, Doppler on Wheels
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences
Creator
Josh Wurman/Center for Severe Weather Research
  • Support as nominatorKs0stm (TCGE) 20:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – high-quality and high-resolution animation of what is sometimes called the most thoroughly documented tornado in history. I'll always be amazed by the "eye" of the tornado on display here. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - High quality image with excellent encyclopedic value. Mifter (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem to be the most valuable on the hook echo article nor the Doppler on Wheels article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)



Tbilisi skyline

Voting period ends on 7 May 2017 at 20:14:05 (UTC)

Original – Panoramic view of the city of Tbilisi, capital of Georgia from the Narikala fortress.
Reason
The picture has an excellent view of the city and just taken recently in September 2016.
Articles in which this image appears
Tibilisi
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator
Poco2 from Wikimedia Commons
  • Support as nominatorcyrfaw (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The photo was actually created by Poco, fixed it for you. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is such a wide panorama that detail is lost in the magnitude of the view. Sca (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This panoramic photo is clear and very detailed. It demonstrates the vastness of the city. Bmbaker88 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The picture is vast and detailed, but it should have been more perfect. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support.--Jobas (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose -- The left part of the image looks overexposed and subsequently adjusted to look less so - details lost in highlights. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)



Kylesku Bridge

Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 03:41:26 (UTC)

Original – Kylesku Bridge putting a hard working ferry out of business.
Reason
Meets the technical standards and resolution standard and is a well composed pic of a notable bridge on a sunny day in scotland
Articles in which this image appears
Kylesku Bridge
FP category for this image
Architecture
Creator
Geni
  • Support as nominator©Geni (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's a fine photo, but I haven't decided how I feel about the harsh sunlight and relatively straightforward composition. In the meantime... there's a dust spot in the sky about one-third of the way inward from the left. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a nice picture, but I feel like the foreground is too blurry, especially above the bridge itself. Maybe blurry is the wrong word, but it just doesn't seem feature worthy to me. Goveganplease (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no foreground above the bridge.©Geni (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Struck !vote as user isn't eligible (5-days old account with 20 edits instead of the required 25 days and 100 edits). Armbrust The Homunculus 00:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – Well, there's a gradual curve or arch to the bridge deck, but I don't know how unusual that might be. For a modern box girder bridge it seems reasonably nice-looking, but the overall composition is rather plain and static. I'm skeptical about EV and visual interest for Main Page readers. Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good photo because it is clear and demonstrates the uniqueness of the architecture. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it's well above size requirements, the sharpness of the image doesn't seem to be exceptional; and I don't think it depicts one of the most notable things about this bridge - its horizontal curve, which is shown much better from above, as in File:Kylesku_Bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_53877.jpg, or either of the photos on this external page. It's a perfectly fine photo, but our standards for landscapes are justifiably very high, as they are the most reproducible type of photo. TSP (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Goveganplease.-Jobas (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)



MCDAAG MVP Michael Porter Jr.

Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 17:33:37 (UTC)

OriginalMichael Porter Jr. holding his award as the MVP of the 2017 McDonald's All-American Boys Game
Reason
This is a sharp and clear photo
Articles in which this image appears
2017 McDonald's All-American Boys Game
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator
TonyTheTiger

I have tried for some time to get images promoted using my APS-C cameras (Canon EOS 600D, Canon EOS 650D and Canon EOS 7D Mark II). I finally had access to a Full-frame digital SLR Canon EOS 1D X Mark II camera. I would like to test a few of my images for support here. This submission is cropped (see the edit history for the original), but unedited. It seems to be sharp enough for consideration. I have the raw file and will try to follow processing suggestions. The primary image editing software that I use is Canon Digital Photo Professional 4.6.10.0.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Note that I take this shot every year as the main image for the articles. E.g.
2016 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20160330 MCDAAG co-MVPs Frank Jackson and Josh Jackson cropped square.jpg
2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20150401 MCDAAG Cheick Diallo MVP award presentation alone.JPG
2014 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20140402 MCDAAG MVPs (2).JPG
2013 McDonald's All-American Boys Game see File:20130403 Aaron Gordon MCDAAG MVP (3) cropped.jpg
The image quality is far superior this year from prior years with lesser equipment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tony, it's not the camera that makes a picture FP worthy. Even photos taken with smartphones can be (and probably have been) promoted. It's the EV, the composition, sufficient quality and the "wow" factor that make a picture featured! --Janke | Talk 10:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well the EV should be clear. For this game, he was the star of the game. Thus, a picture of him is probably the best picture we could have to depict the game. One of him with the award in hand makes the point clear.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • P.S. I have nomminated a lot of sports photos that have wow factor for sports fans, but don't seem to have enough wow factor for photography buffs. Furthermore, very little of what I see in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport (e.g. none of the first 8 pictures there right now) has a wow factor to me. They are mostly boring photos of high quality, so I don't know what to think of that element.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This photo is a good photo because it is focused and accurately portrays the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support.--Jobas (talk) 23:14, 28 April 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 April 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 April 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.

Emerald damselfyy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2017 at 07:10:35 (UTC)

Original – A male emerald damselfly (Lestes sponsa) at Warren Heath in Hampshire, UK
Reason
Quality macro image of tiny damselfly (about 37mm long)
Articles in which this image appears
Emerald damselfly
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharles (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose Should be more in focus. f/6.3 is small even for m4/3. Unless you do stack, which isnt obvious here. --Mile (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Your understanding of depth of field limitations in wildlife macro photography does you no credit. It is laughable to even mention focus-stacking. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose per Mile.--Jobas (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree, f/6.3 was too open. Working with angles and a bit higher f-number (f/8 or f/9 would still have relatively minimal diffraction) you could get a bit more of the animal in focus. There's a reason why most of our dragonfly pictures have the animals on a flat plane (either as dorsals or side views). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your point about 'a flat plane' @Crisco 1492:. The body of this damselfly is at 90 deg to the camera and perfectly in focus from its eyes to end of abdomen. F8 would have made some difference here, but not much Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Compare the orientation of the dragonfly to what's already been featured and you'll see what I mean by "a flat plane". Directly from the side, or directly from above. This is closer to a 45 degree angle.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I see what you mean, but it didn't stop you voting for others like this! 1, 2, 3 or indeed your own nominations 1, 2 Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with this image is that the dragonfly's wings are severely out of focus, which is not so with the images you quoted. (Except for the wasp, but that's a different kind of image). --Janke | Talk 12:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This particular damselfly's wings will always be out of focus in a macro image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As Janke said, and I need to emphasize, the issue was with the DOF. The flat plane was a recommendation for reducing DOF issues, as was the higher F-number. You could also take a step back and then crop. The grasshopper image you cite (the only one of these I took myself) was not at 1:1. I think it may have been 0.5. Been a few years.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is already featured. Isn't it?? Goveganplease (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • On Commons. Not on the English Wikipedia.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a nice shot of the damselfly because it is very detailed and clear. The focus could have been adjusted better to capture the wings, but overall a nice photo. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm concerned about the depth of field, the wings are quite blurry, unlike other photographs of insects. Mattximus (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)



Male Komodo dragon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 09:37:05 (UTC)

Original – Male komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) on Komodo Island, Indonesia. A reptile's forked tongue allows it to sense from which direction a smell is coming.
Reason
Through to second round of Commons Picture of the Year 2017
Articles in which this image appears
Komodo dragon, Komodo National Park, Indonesia
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Creator
Charlesjsharp
  • Support as nominatorCharles (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Impressive with good EV; I'm not too fond of the black shadow (a little too harsh), but it doesn't detract from the picture quality. —Bruce1eetalk 12:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm sorry to vote against this one, but the combination of harsh shadows, and the fact that most of the animal has been cut off (the image looks like the animal is very wide, but in reality is quite long) means low EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Very striking and aesthetically pleasing picture of a komodo dragon. I'm not keen on the shadows for EV purposes, however. They seem almost black  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Naturally the harsh shadows are intentional to show menace with the extended tongue. I took other photos of the whole animal and of males fighting, but I chose this one to feature. The animal is so large, if you show it all you don't get the menace, nor the detail of head, tongue and front leg. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, I get the menace. My issue is that this choice, though very appropriate for a more aesthetics-oriented site like Commons (not to mention hard to avoid this close to the equator), limits the image's EV in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support per my comments at the Commons FP discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think shadow isnt good option here, to strong contrast. --Mile (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per other opposes. --Janke | Talk 20:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per other opposes.--Jobas (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – The dramatic, constrasty sidelighting makes for a striking image and doesn't detract at all from the EV. Genuinely not sure what the problem is. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I can clarify. The main function of a photo on wikipedia should be encyclopedic: does it accurately portray the animal? In this case, having more than half the animal out of frame, and the half that is in frame obscured by shadow does not fit this description. It certainly is articistic, and "menacing", however it's not encyclopedic. For example, would you know that it is shaped like this
    Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) 3.jpg
    based on this image? Mattximus (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • But it shows its forked tongue very clearly, the role of which is discussed in the article; and it's the only picture in the article showing its tongue. So there's EV. —Bruce1eetalk 06:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Having taken both photos, I can explain further. The full length picture is good for the header photo as it illustrates the whole animal. But it cannot do justice to this most fearsome of reptiles. For that you need the nominated image. Think about human portraits. Do we reject all of them? Think about education. Which image would you use to talk to children about this creature? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I took the liberty to replace the old version with a gamma-corrected one, please see if this might fare better... If you don't like it, feel free to revert it on the file page! --Janke | Talk 14:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the effort, but I prefer the dark shadows. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a great photo of the Komodo dragon because it is a close-up and is very crisp and clear. Bmbaker88 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the shadow is a bit too strong on its right. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:46, 29 April 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=777959712"
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