Oppose This is a nice photo, but does not illustrate the article well. It is a juvenile and should not be in the infobox. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the stance I would expect (it is walking on slippery ice) - also, the color seems to be a bit off, too warm, lessens EV. (Yes, I know, "golden hour"...) --Janke | Talk 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough [1], I withdraw the nom. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Bernoulli, a prominent mathematician and physicist. For details see the lead section of his article and Bernoulli's principle which is used today in fluid mechanics and aerodynamics (flight). The image can use a slight touch-up (some of the bright dots can be removed and the crop can be slightly larger), which I will do if this nom gets a couple of supports.
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't tell if spots are on the picture or from the camera. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the normal amount of painting dust and reflection, pretty much unavoidable. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 10:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 13:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded and replaced it with a cleaner edited version, per reason section of nom. Bammesk (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Porträt des Daniel Bernoulli - edit1.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 18:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty picture but not so encyclopaedic with the bird landing. Doesn't add much to the article. I was the sole oppose voter (on technical grounds) at Commons FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The first sentence on top of WP:FPC page says: "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." The sentence is written as an "either/or", so I figure exceptional wow factor can make up for deficiencies (weak EV, technical issues, etc.). This has exceptional wow factor IMO. I might support, but am currently hesitant because we have two FPs of this bird [2][3]. Bammesk (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC) . . . . I support delisting one of the older FPs. Bammesk (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Stunning until you zoom in, at which point weaknesses show. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 11:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't feel comfortable with my half-heartened being the cause of this not being promoted. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 12:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Would look enticing on the front page, leading viewers to the article. --Janke | Talk 17:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Could be a little sharper on some of the larvae, but this is easily forgivable as it's an action shot of sorts. Overall, it's great. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 11:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting species, nice comp. Comparatively brief but fairly comprehensive article. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weaksupport Shot and pose is great; but it's kind of near the low end of resolution, so it lacks wow once you zoom in. On most of your images I can see the ribs on feathers clearly, so maybe I'm getting used to an excessively good standard. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 13:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not willing to have my ambivalence good it back. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 14:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 16:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Green kingfisher (Chloroceryle americana) male 3.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2022 at 08:12:19 (UTC)
Original – Graptopsaltria nigrofuscata, the large brown cicada, is a species of cicada in the genus Graptopsaltria of the family Cicadidae found across East Asia, including Japan, the Korean Peninsula, and China.
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a stub article but a stub article is no barrier to an image becoming FP. See discussion on stub articles. For little-known species, a good image is crucial. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Less than 100 words of text, or less than a third of a stub. All FP noms are de facto nominations for TFP; this one fails to meet Main Page standards. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All been said before. – Sca (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that POTD issues should be consider separately to FP issues. Articles can improve seperately, and whilst this night be blocked from POTD until the article improves, it also allows for a far better focus on the article if the article is short which can be beneficial.I
However, we've created a worse problem now: having a discussion where you pull people to the FPC page who haven't yet voted on it kind of feels a little too close to canvassing for votes by the people this linked to count. I don't think there's any ill intent, but it's hard to see how to move forwards from this short of restarting the nomination. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not canvassing for this nom - it's not mine! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No accusation intended; just feel like I shouldn't vote in it now, y'know? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 01:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 16:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the poster was made with some sort of early photogravure technique (called a phototype on the poster, but that's... not particularly helpful in identifying it) and somewhat shows it, it's also a poster for a landmark opera, which I think forgives a fair bit.
Articles in which this image appears
Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) (stable for 2 years as the lead there, albeit in an incomplete restoration); also four other pages, literally just added now, that cannot possibly add more EV than the opera's article and so can be ignored.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – nice restoration. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased with the result, but it was rather an annoying one. Abandoned this back in 2020 because it felt like no progress was being made. Then finished it in like 2 more days when I came back to it. Some restorations are just like that. Ah, well. Such an important opera that it's worth it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 16:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Georges Rochegrosse - Poster for the prèmiere of Claude Debussy and Maurice Maeterlinck's Pelléas et Mélisande.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could be high quality work, but difficult to validate and could be interpreted as OR. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source in the description states that the water level was at 1,939 meters for Early Estancia, 1,897 meters for Late Estancia, and 1,870 meters for Lake Willard. I literally tell you the exact Digital Elevation Model tiles that I used. It might take you 3-4 hours to mosaic them, clip to the area of interest, generate the contours, and then select out the wanted contours, but an experienced geographer could easily repeat what I did. You can also compare the shape of my map to maps found in other publications. While I did not use them while making this map, they reflect what this map shows: Early, Early, Early and Late -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 15:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know and I gave you four secondary sources with the information: the three linked above and the paper which has the facts that I used. If you look at that paper, there are also maps in it that can be used to cross check. How can it be OR when I am following, facts from secondary sources. --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi 22:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2022 at 00:37:44 (UTC)
Original – Marian Anderson, African-American contralto and civil rights activist who opened up a lot of doors for herself and held them open for others.
Reason
High quality image; nice use of contrast. The background's one of those sorts of things that are very much of this era, which is fine; image is Carl Van Vechten, who is great here as usual.
It's a little hard to judge with darker skintones in black and white, especially against dark fabric. I might do a small tweak to the bottom of the range, but I'm really happy with the skintones. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 12:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sharpness, I judge it at 50% which is still 1600+ pixels. It's a historic photo, so I am not picky with technical quality. The EV wins. Bammesk (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling at Commons right now... Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons... I don't think gets historic photography sometimes, especially not how it relates to candidness vs quality. It took quite some time for a photo not in a studio to even come close to studio quality, especially in a dimly lit nightclub. Hell, studio photos of the 1910s are generally way worse than those of the 1870s, but you didn't need to strap yourself to a pole. This is a good candid photo, especially given photographers of the day knew fell well the maximum quality of reproduction they'd be getting: by and large, a few exceptions aside, halftoning puts a maximum sharpness that needs be cared about for the whole of the last half of the 20th century. That we can see these images and they hold up so well now says a lot about their talent, little as it might have gotten seen in full during these photographers' lifetimes.
FPCs at Commons can pretty readily fall to judging everything by modern standards, and encyclopedic value is explicitly not a consideration there, so things that would never pass here pass there, and vice-versa. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it did pass on Commons. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It is true that Commons doesn't understand historic photography, more than sometimes. Yann (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed photo with strong EV Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2022 at 18:10:32 (UTC)
Original – Heart Nebula, and Fish Head Nebula on top right corner.
Reason
Quality image of Heart Nebula. The Fish Head Nebula is in the top right corner. Captured by amateur astrophotographer Ram Samudrala. Color is captured using three 'Hubble palette' filters (Ha, Sii, Oiii). FP on Commons.
Quite a nice picture. Pretty standard lighting for the era, good resolution and quality. Your classic "notable person doing what they're notable for" shot, or as near as you can get when photography isn't allowed in court.
Support, although a slight touch up on the left edge would be great. MER-C 18:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Seems I slightly misjudged my left crop. I fixed the jagged part and cropped 2px. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Catches the attention, good EV. --Tagooty (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the text on the original is just "Rosalind Goodrich Bates" in upside-down mirror writing. I believe it's easier to write on one side of negatives, which varies by photographic era. Just a fun fact. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 19:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting photographs from major Broadway shows of this quality is rather rare, and this is an amazing image for Juanita Hall, way better than anything else we had for her. It's not perfect, but that's the thing about Van Vechten: He's a window to a period of time that no-one else covers in the same way. Probably going to be seeing a number of his photographs related to the Harlem Renaissance this month because Wikipedia's celebrating the American Black History month (the British one is October), and I'm quite happy to take an extra push.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2022 at 16:15:24 (UTC)
Original – Stainless-steel Starship spacecraft
Reason
This image is the highest resolution of the Starship spacecraft, with minimal technical flaws. It is part of the rocket which is also called Starship, which there is no free image to date. Although newer prototypes of Starship have been photographed, Starship SN16 is close to the general form of the final design.
It's easily corrected if so, but is this tilted slightly? It might just be me being thrown by that pipe. Support otherwise. It has flaws, but photos of giant shiny metal things are prone to that. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 17:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose uncorrected perspective distortion, crop too tight. The final version would have more enduring encyclopedic value. (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re skewed perspective. Looks about to fall over to right. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot fix distortion with my primitive tools (no Photoshop), and I would be more than happy to have someone else fix it. I corrected the colors to make the rocket looks more realistic and less hazy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gorgeous image, but with the number of images in that small article, and essentially showing a corridor, albeit a very pretty one, I have some doubts about the EV, compounded by no text, that I can tell, really describing this part of the cloisters. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 19:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Evocative atmospherics, good detail. Could be cropped in a bit, in part to hide slightly distracting door at right, in part to trim tiled floor in foreground (floorground?). But leave the ceiling. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- limited EV. Good image but not outstanding. --Tagooty (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Not an exciting view, but well done. The article does say "Pope Urban II visited (...) issued a Papal Bull dated 7 May 1097 (...) also ordered the construction of the cloister, completed in 1100", so it isn't void of EV. Personally my favorite part is the ceiling! Bammesk (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These should probably be a small set, but taking this as it is.... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 19:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Adam Cuerden. --Tagooty (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't see the EV. The article says nothing about nymph, reproduction, etc., and why is it in infobox. Bammesk (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a learned article to add anything about the nymph. Hence the image itself is so important. I added it to infobox as, when you come across these insects like I did, you naturally assume they are two diferent grasshoppers. At that time, Wikipedia was of no help. It is now, which is what we should be all about: sharing knowledge to improve the encyclopaedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as below. Strong, detailed, ugly (because grasshoppers are) and expertly-taken image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 19:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Adam Cuerden --Tagooty (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Obvious high quality and EV. Comparing to an art print on sale, the colours are slightly different. How can we check? May be cropped slightly on the left. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:TITIAN - Venus Anadyomene (National Galleries of Scotland, c. 1520. Oil on canvas, 75.8 x 57.6 cm).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the text on the poster may annoy me, I think a bright, colourful image of Jones herself is very good at bringing interest in. And it does kind of fit with how her talent and her race interplayed: Being invited to sing for four consecutive U.S. Presidents, but having to use the back door until Theodore Roosevelt finally invited her to use the front door.
Metropolitan Printing Co., restored by Adam Cuerden
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 01:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very nice. Yes the text on the poster is annoying, but I think we can trust the judgment of one of the more experienced article editors Here. The image has been stable since article's creation in 2005. Bammesk (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The infobox image has more EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'd normally agree a photo and alleg poster were appropriate for a Victorian entertainer, since they show different types of information, and especially when the photo is as bad as the one in her article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 14:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'm not wild about the poster with the weird medals. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but... well, I try not to judge how the past presents itself. I presume they're meaningful, even if I don't have the specific knowledge to identify them: she sang for the British Royal Family and four U.S. Presidents, so I presume they're significant medals, not just random costume props, since this isn't advertising her in a role. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the dates, it would presumably need to be from her Carribean tour. Now, my knowledge of Carribean politics of the time is very weak, but if it's anything like today, that's a lot of small nations who might well throw a ceremony at a popular entertainer. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison: . Little too similar, maybe to put both in the article. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 21:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both in article. Bammesk (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For what it's worth, I welcome inclusion of the text: she is still remembered in the literature as having been called the "Black Patti", and I see no harm in reminding people of that nickname. (Also, as a Virginian it's nice to see some love for a Portsmouth native.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it's a significant part of her story - if you found The Black Patti Troubadors, you're going to be stuck with that nickname. I just feel one should explicitly recognise that the text on the poster - especially the "of her race" part - are problematic. Having done so, we can note the historic value despite that, and appropriately judge it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Oh, I agree - it's just that when I hear "annoying", it suggests to me that one would prefer a poster without the words, and I think they have value in shining a light on the times/circumstance. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Well, between The Black Patti Troubadours and the 2012 biography "Sissieretta Jones: The Greatest Singer of her Race" and that appearing on her gravestone and the plaque, every line on that poster is relevant to understanding something in her article. I may not like the phrasing, but it's tied up in her legacy. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 08:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:1899 poster of Mme. M. Sissieretta Jones.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2022 at 06:01:54 (UTC)
Original – Nikola Tesla in his laboratory in Colorado Springs, U.S., in 1899, next to his "magnifying transmitter"Alt – without handwriting (for depiction)
Reason
A photo of Nicola Tesla's work, a pioneer in AC electric power generation and distribution, and co-inventor of the Induction motor. Also known for Tesla coil, Tesla (unit) and Tesla (car). In this photo he is sitting in his laboratory in Colorado Springs, U.S., next to his magnifying transmitter. This photo is still used in books and articles [4][5][6]. The photo was shot in multiple-exposures (i.e. the film was exposed with and without him present). This is probably the most iconic photo of his work. At the time, the photo was used to promote his work.
Support as nominator, either version – Bammesk (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was proposed before, but with the writing retouched out. Did is pass or not? --Janke | Talk 12:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No because it needed restoration [7]. I have restored it now. This version is used in 8 articles (3 listed here and 5 here), the edited version is used in 2 articles (listed here and here). Bammesk (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a version with the handwriting removed. --Janke | Talk 17:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I introduced an Alternate. If it gets a few votes, I will remove the handwriting and upload a separate file. Bammesk (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I understand that the photo could exist without the writing, but the example that was scanned did have writing on it? And the writing is removed presumably by cloning the floorboards? My feeling is that the writing and signature are part of the interest, and keeping it is more honest and really more interesting. ProfDEH (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About your first sentence: not totally. The image was captured in a 1899 photo shoot. (On a sidenote: a different version from the same photo shoot was published in June of 1900 in this magazine figure 8.) The nominated version (with Tesla in it) was produced in multiple copies, distributed or published variously for promotion of his work. For example, the copy nominated here was inscribed for and sent to physicist William Crookes (see Tesla's inscription on the image and it is signed 1901). Here is another copy inscribed to/for someone else (if you zoom in, certainly the handwriting is not identical to the nominated copy), it's a different copy. In short, there are more than one copy (or one print) of this. I have seen this image many times, my recollection is mostly without the handwriting (as in the 3 examples linked to in the reason section). The copy nominated here is a high resolution, well preserved copy, and it is the William Crookes' copy (he must have been a good archivist!), and it's published by a reliable source [8]. There is no reason to assume the handwriting is fundamentally inherent to the image, it is not. We can keep the image as is in order to preserve the provenance of this particular copy "on the image itself", or we can remove it to depict the actual image which was circulated in various forms at the time. I support either way. Bammesk (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica example is a cropped view, but click on the magnify icon and it shows the full image with handwriting. ProfDEH (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About your second sentence "cloning the floorboards": If you look closely here, the floorboards aren't cloned. The handwriting in dark ink is cloned, not the floorboards. It is not an easy fix, but that's what User:Lošmi did, and that's what I will do. Bammesk (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The writing was not originally on the 1899 photo. --Janke | Talk 22:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I understood that the writing is Tesla's which gives it added encyclopaedic value, doesn't it? Like an autographed First Edition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Tesla had prints made with the lower part "dodged out" to make the space lighter and suitable for writing? Thus, it is a "doctored" photo, and I prefer the original without text. --Janke | Talk 14:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that. I'll abstain. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support either' It's really quite normal for old photos to be writtenon, but it varies as to whether it's worth keeping. Ggiven a preference, I'd go with writing here. As an aside, the amount of information I've found out by trying to read the writing is immense, like date of the photo. I it's often mirrored because of the side of the negative available for writing, so if I can't read it, I do a flip. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the date written is not the date of the photo - 2 years off! --Janke | Talk 21:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Seeing the discussion and realising I haven't actually voted, I'm in favour of keeping the writing. ProfDEH (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna support but there appears to be some posterization and the sunlight is detracting from the subject (Crete) in the articles where it is used. I've seen much better quality satellite images at FPC (t · c) buidhe 04:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a lot of character to it. It gives a strong feeling of her acting, and I can't find any evidence of any other images from this show, so... I'm a bit nervous given the complete disinterest in the photo of Juanita Hall in a much more famous musical below, but... well...
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 00:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original background very overexposed isn't it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Can't argue with that. I was a bit hesitant with this one, but Bailey herself came out so well that I thought the background mattered less. In its defense, I will say that may be an artefact of photographing African-Americans with the film of the time which was better with lighter tones: Better to overexpose a background and get a detailed face. Of course, it's also possible the Library of Congress did a bad job with the reproduction; I've seen evidence e of that in images from this lot, like Shirley Graham, which Harvard has a way better copy of that I want. Sorry for my delayed response; I honestly don't know how I missed this yesterday while seeing Bammesk's, but it was kind of a bad day. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – But there is an odd shading on her nose and it goes down to her chin, perhaps easier to see on the original jpeg at full size. LOC says the original was a print, so perhaps it's an indentation on the print. Can it be improved? Bammesk (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading a fix now. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great, well done. Bammesk (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Copper sunbird (Cinnyris cupreus cupreus) female on Persian silk tree (Albizia julibrissin).jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 17:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the background but won't go against unanimous vote. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've talked myself around to Support: this is the only image in the article photographed from a angle that shows the stake and pistils. I was hesitant as, for its size, that article is very stuffed with images, and the backlighting felt like the sort of gimmicky trick more suitable to Commons than here. But it's actually justified for a pendulous flower. I would gently suggest that this should probably have been in the nomination rationale, though. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the rubbed out face but no one Commons seemed to mind. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. To tell the truth its not intentionally "rubbed out", but a motion artifact during long exposure --Moroder (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stunning. I presume quite dimly lit, so the long exposure was a good choice. Just to note, you know you are allowed to vote on your own work, Moroder? Don't want you to feel excluded. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 16:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well then double support ;-)--Moroder (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support a common bird needs a really good photo, and this is one. I am surprised, however, to see no notice being paid of the bee (?) the wee thing's eating. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 15:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took several images and I think it's eating grubs. For some reason, birds with food stay often stay still for a long time before eating. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite like it. Really adds in to the bit about it being insectivorous. If it can be identified, it'd be worth including. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 19:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going back a bit (1873) in the history of photography for this. I think this is quite good for the time, and the scan is probably as high resolution as is actually there. In a very Field of Dreams (did anyone ever even watch that movie at the time? I know it solely from references) moment, I was told that if I restored it, an article will come. I did, and it did.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question There's a full length picture accredited to Reutlinger on the web. Slightly different pose. Might even be the same sitting. Is this one a crop? 21:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is the version as distributed (The newspaper/magazine Paris-Théâtre - or possibly Hebdomadaire? - literally stuck photographs to its pages, as seen here) and I'd be inclined to trust the Quinet attribution given it's in the newspaper itself. Also, Reutlinger's works are pretty well documented - here's volume 50, for example - and, while it's not proof, as a consequence of this, it's usually pretty easy to find evidence of a Reutlinger photo existing if it is by him by a simple search of Reutlinger + surname on Gallica.
That said, the Album Reutlinger, as roughly contemporaneous, does give some proof of photographs in the same sitting with multiple choices of zoom. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 22:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others above. --Tagooty (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Mademoiselle Priola de l'Opéra Comique, rôle de Javotte dans "Le Roi l'a dit" de Delibes.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality, lighting, EV and composition. Though there is a glare in the spectacle, it is not much distracting the image/eyes and I seriously did not want to manipulate the image by removing it. The impossibility of getting good quality pictures of judges adds high EV.
Comment I have concerns over notability and objectivity. You created the article and have broadly been the only contributor. The image itself is not helped by the caoting on his glasses, nor the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, my major contributions are towards the Indian judiciary and especially Kerala state judiciary, the highest judicial system in the state. I don't think there are much contributors specifically on this particular area since the availability of material and photographs are very less and difficult. I don't know how to explain the difficulty of getting a portrait of a judicial officer. Moreover, as you suggested in some other discussions, the article is not the criteria for considering FPC. As far as the other objections are concerned, I did not want to manipulate the image, that is they I left it as it is for consideration. DreamSparrowChat 05:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does the Kerala state judiciary has any interest outside Kerala? I suspect not. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Man looks at camera. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – good photo but not a compelling pose/composition. I disagree with Charles, article creation is a positive, not a negative, and notability by en-Wiki standards is all that counts. Bammesk (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know Bammesk, but hope you understand the difficulty to give a direction for pose or composition arrangement to a 'Judge'. Helpless. I could take the better way possible. DreamSparrowChat 18:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the end, Dreamsparrow is providing us with encyclopedic photos of notable people we couldn't readily get otherwise. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 02:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having read the article again, I do think think he is notable. He has done nothing of note. He is just doing his job. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have different ideas on notability. Certainly the British examples are not notable in my view. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May be the difference in idea Charlesjsharp. But Charles, let me make it more specific, we cannot consider the notability of persona in a single general way, kindly have a look at this too David Paciocco, Bradley W. Miller, Alison Harvison Young, David H. Doherty, George Strathy, Frank Marrocco, Sarah Pepall (single line article), Faye McWatt. All of them are notable only because they hold the particular office. But it doesn't mean that, they are doing nothing to the society. It is only because we have very less contributors in the area which is too boring and complex. Especially to contribute about persona is much more difficult comparing to other subjects and that may be one of the reasons for less or inactive contributors in this area. Moreover, if am not wrong, since I started creating articles about the judges of Kerala judiciary, there were very few judge's articles and that is the major reason for major contributions are made by me only ha ha. I am trying to do my level best and will continue as much as possible to expand/create the articles. Answer to your earlier point, Does the Kerala state judiciary has any interest outside Kerala?, yes of course and you may not be aware of it. That's why I called it as boring and complex subject. I think I am the only contributor concentrating particularly on this subject. Hope you got my point and appreciate my effort: DreamSparrowChat 04:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - not wild about the composition, but it does squeak by to me. No concerns at all about notability; the judge of a state supreme court is sufficiently notable, I should think. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.
Oppose The subject is notable and the photo is useful, but it's not of FP standard due to the reflections on his glasses. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
High quality, good pose, notable photographer, and a very important person: kind of the classic trifecta of a historic image featured picture. Forgive the number of nominations, just been having some anxiety issues, and find image editing relaxing, which, well, has put a lot of time onto restoration.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 02:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting bio. The image is very soft, but good EV and historic. It looks much better at the original's 8x10 inch size. (The 450px per inch scan rate is too high for this) Bammesk (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's not worth downscaling, and it honestly helps a bit with the restoration if you can do it large. Plus, in the event someone does want to use it larger than advisable, this looks better than pixellation. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 04:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's better to have a high scan rate. Bammesk (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the focus is on his tie & lapel, not his face. Even a pro makes mistakes sometime... --Janke | Talk 12:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Janke is right Adam, isn't he? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think trying to judge 1950s photography by today's standards is rather a mug's game. His face is hardly badly out of focus. If we go down that route, and ignore the pools of images we have to select from we're going to redirect all work towards only the most well-photographed people. At the moment, every single person of colour I nominated this month is not passing, and I think that shows what happens if we try to hold historic, literal museum-quality photography (this is from the Smithsonian) to modern standards. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is about 1950 - using a large-format camera (which I suppose was used for this photo), the sharpness could be on par or even better than most digital shots today (albeit with a lot less DOF), this focusing error is unfortunate. Besides, with three more supports, this will pass despite my vote... ;-) --Janke | Talk 19:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Soft but good EV and impossibility of taking a better one now. DreamSparrowChat 21:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 20:06:00 (UTC)
Original – Edmonia Lewis, or "Wildfire" to give her Ojibwe name, was a sculptor of the Neoclassical school, internationally popular for a time before Neoclassical art fell out of favour, now being rediscovered
Reason
While the age - 1870 - is somewhat going against the image quality: The original negatives, if they exist, tend to be far, far better than actual prints can be from that age - I think the quality of the image shines through. We also get a really good look, on her left-hand side (right as you're looking at it) at an example of one of the devices meant to help the sitter stay still long enough for the lengthy exposure cameras of the period needed. It's a very nice photograph of a notable person. One could argue as to whether this was intended to be cropped; if you want an alt, we can consider File:Edmonia Lewis by Henry Rocher (cropped).jpg
Support – I support the cropped version as well, equally. Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Not the world's greatest pic., but after all it's c. 1870. (Could be cropped a bit from top.) Fascinating and comprehensive bio article of a very interesting person most of us never have heard of. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 22:02:15 (UTC)
Original – The 51 roadways in Washington, D.C. that are named after States or TerritoriesAlt 1 – The 51 roadways in Washington, D.C. that are named after States or Territories
Much better, though you'll need to tidy it up to improve quality and make it more cartographic. Also, there are some unmarked red bits. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is just the way the DC road network works. The state avenues have a bad habit of randomly starting and stopping. Maryland Avenue is 8 non-contiguous pieces GuerilleroParlez Moi 21:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More to do, but no oppose now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Charles. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just my opinion (it's very subjective): The area outside D.C. is bright, and it pops like an unfinished canvas. How about de-emphasizing it by using a milder tone there. Maybe c6c5c3, abb2ab, a4aaa4, etc. or anything to make the D.C. area pop over the surroundings. Bammesk (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 – Bammesk (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alt1 – Sorry, but the map legend with street names doesn't really solve the problem. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the streets are less than half a kilometer in length. There isn't a way to label them short of increasing the size another time; we are already at 5k pixels a side. Opposes need to be actionable --GuerilleroParlez Moi 14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Not perfect, but it's a difficult subject to display and these maps have a high encyclopedic value. (t · c) buidhe 14:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2022 at 03:18:42 (UTC)
Original – Comparison of elevations of some notable bridges at the same scale
Reason
Photos of famous bridges do not adequately show how large they are compared to one another. This SVG shows them all at the same scale, and lets the viewer highlight them interactively. Additionally, the Çanakkale 1915 Bridge, the first bridge in 20+ years to become the world's longest span, is planned to open on 2022-02-26,ref and I think it appropriate to mark the occasion.
Support as nominator – cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 03:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support either – Bammesk (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find this confusing and poorly designed. 10:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)
@Charlesjsharp:, @Sca:, @MER-C:Detached version I've spread out the bridges as in this image. Will this do instead? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Agree with previous unsigned post. What a jumble (jungle?) this chart is. Also, it appears only at the bottom of the main target article, strangely, under 'Notes.' – Sca (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The W?F doesn't help here, the SVG and its interactivity when used in articles is lost thanks to MediaWiki. MER-C 19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what you mean by W?F. I've added a link parameter to link the thumbnail to the SVG. Is it better? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Çanakkale bridge is 105 ft longer (per its article) than the Akashi bridge. In the "detached version", at full screen size, it extends much past 105 ft? Never mind, see below. (105ft is the tower to tower difference) Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got the profiles from [9] and [10], respectively. The engineering drawings show that the spans are measured from the towers' centrelines. The much wider base above water of the Akashi bridge makes it look like it has a significantly smaller span if one assumes that the span is measured from the inner part of the piers. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmglee, I checked the Çanakkale bridge on google maps: it extends about 3000 ft to the left of the west tower and 4000 ft to the right of the east tower. Looking at the SVG file at full screen size on my browser, the Çanakkale bridge extends more than 3000/4000 ft !? Although, looking at Google Earth, maybe I am looking at it wrong.Bammesk (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmglee, looking at the link you gave above: This link, Çanakkale extends 770+680=1450 meters to the right of the east tower. On your SVG file (detached version) it extends 1600 meters to the right of the east tower. I did more checking and all else everything looks Ok now. Nice and informative drawings. Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmglee, never mind, I struck everything above that confused me. Your drawing has slightly wider grids on the left half, because of the meters to feet conversion, and that threw me off. All is good, everything matches: your sources, your SVG file, google maps all match. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I support both versions, the 'original' and the 'detached'. Bammesk (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bammesk: Thank you very much for investigating and confirming the profile. Glad it's now resolved. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment. I saw this at the science reference desk[12] and, on coming here, was taken aback by the superimposed version at the top. However, the "detached" version is much better and, I find, highly encyclopedic. In the detached version the highlighting is not really necessary and, indeed, is a bit of a distraction. Take this as support for detached or ignore my comment, however you wish. Thincat (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something is going terribly wrong with the thumbnails. Why are two of the bridges getting cut off at the sides? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 22:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram isn't meant to show the entire Çanakkale and Akashi bridges as they are so long that the smaller ones would be lost. They show just enough of the main spans to compare their lengths. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I click through all the way to the full SVG, it's incredibly good. I'm just not sure Wikipedia handles it well enough. 18:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment I don't like holding others to my own standards, but there's a lot of marks visible on the lower text area even at the file page preview size, and the bottom.edge has a lot of discoloration even at thumbnail. It's a halftone poster (which is fine), and I don't think every speck needs fixed on halftone, but the macro damage seems more of a problem. Unless you genuinely think that's intentional. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 15:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, if you edit or restore it, I will support. (perhaps later in a re-nom) Bammesk (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing, but I kind of have a plan for this month,so it's be early March. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 05:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I didn't finish the restoration, but abandoned halfway through. (t · c) buidhe 21:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 15:43:10 (UTC)
Original – A full disk view of planet Earth. Taken on December 7, 1972.
Reason
Properly color-calibrated version of widely known NASA photo AS17-148-22727 (a.k.a., The Blue Marble). Scanned by Johnson Space Center/Arizona State University.
The Apollo 17 Crew/NASA JSC/ASU, restored by Aaron1a12
Support as nominator – Aaron1a12 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this nom passes, we should delist This FP. Bammesk (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we? I think sometimes iconic photos can be ruined by changing them for accuracy. In this case, it was colour corrected fifty years later based on a different photograph in different lighting. I'm not entirely sure of the methodolog, given we have to ask how much any photo can exactly reflect the human eye. There's no one right answer as to exposure. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, digital white-balancing is considerably more accurate nowadays than the chemical processing from the 1970s. NASA themselves have released various chromatically-altered versions through out the years (https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-blue-marble-the-view-from-apollo-17) and yet we stick by the purple version. Aaron1a12 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron1a12, the flickr source here gives a ~ 2500 x 2500 pixel image after cropping, not 3000x3000 pixels? Bammesk (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is primarily from a JSC/ASU scan, not flickr. It's actually higher-res than the flickr source. Aaron1a12 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – FWIW the film frames are at this link. The nominated frame/capture AS17-148-22727 is here. Two frames earlier is the AS17-148-22725 here and it's different. The end frame of the '148' magazine (presumably the color calibration) is here. For comparison, we have this. Bammesk (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The large resolution .PNGs are already color-processed by ASU and are, in fact, copyrighted by the university. The copyright-free 1.2 GB raw file is where you want to start if you want to color-calibrate it yourself. The original pic is quite dark and how you interpret the gamma will greatly affect the look when correcting exposure. BTW: nice photo from the ISS Cupola you got there! The blues in the ocean look remarkably similar to the blues in this photo. Aaron1a12 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom image has better colors than this older version, but it looks overexposed (by about half a stop i.e. 0.5EV) (just the midtones, not the highlights). I support if it's adjusted. About the comparison-image, I think it's background is overexposed too (overexposure of bright spots is common in high dynamic range photos). Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've lowered the EV slightly now (your browser cache might take time to update). Histogram's looking good. Aaron1a12 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like it might have been uploaded to promote a safari business. And you might want to check copyright. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat suspicious of its originality and copyright, but I can't find this exact image anywhere else, so I think it's okay. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume it is copyright free? The fact that it isn't anywhere else would support the probability that this is a high quality publicity photo, wouldn't it? Who is the photographer?Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would it not being anywhere else support support that this is a copyrighted photo? Surely such an image would be easy to locate on the safari business' website. In any case, since you asked, the uploader had claimed it as their own work. However, I'm afraid you may ultimately be correct, as a little more digging unearthed more photos uploaded by that user undoubtably not belonging to them. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with Charles about the copyright. The source webpage has a copyright tag at the bottom. The nom composition isn't posted at the source link, a similar composition is posted there. Bammesk (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – also the height is less than 1500 pixels, see FP criterion 2. Bammesk (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2022 at 14:40:31 (UTC)
Original – The Recreation Yard was the yard used by inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary between 1934 and 1963. It is located adjacent to the Dining Hall northwest of the end of D-Block on a raised level surrounded by a high wall and fence above it.
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low POV and too much foreground. Light. And the bird. As I posted on Commons FP where it is a current nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the composition doesn't stand out, it looks bland. Bammesk (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Charles. EV seems doubtful. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Thank you very much for the nomination, Tomer T. I would like to mention that I chose the low point of view intentionally to make the seagull more central. The bird and the yard have an important role in this picture. The seagull is a metaphorical symbol for the lostness of the prisoners, but it can fly away at any time, what the inmates could do only in their dreams. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV, excellent perspective showing scale. --Tagooty (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, too dark for encyclopaedic value. Misleading PoV for EV too. I prefer this picture for infobox. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is from the back, mind. You'd have to actively walk away from most of the stuff on Calton Hill to see that side of it,whereas the proposed image is the front side that it was "intended" to be seen from. I'd say your proposal is the better photo, though it is the same rough angle as the view from Salisbury Crags, the next photo in the article after the infobox, which I'm guessing is the reason it doesn't appear Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Well, it is rather dark, and I'm not sure the presence of the "tourists" and their photographer is appropriate in terms of EV. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While I'm fine with the angle, this monument moves in and out of shadow throughout the day, and this was arguably a bad time. One person would be useful to scale, I don't think we needed a massive unidentified group. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 00:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Tomer T (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, for not for EV. A group photo is not best for an encyclopaedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it could be sharper, but the wow factor makes up for it. The side birds look smaller. Are they juveniles? Is this a family photo?! Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Cute and visually interesting; detail at full res. seems good enough to me. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish I could paint one like this - DreamSparrowChat 19:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I see Charles' point - it's rather wasted in the article - but the article doesn't seem so stuffed with images that a few angles of the bird isn't useful. I'm glad this one identifies subspecies. If only the bloody infobox image did the same. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 11:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically correct to omit the ssp for the nominate species like this one. I now put in the ssp even for nominate ssp as it makes it easier for my file naming and for VI here. As a side comment, most bird watchers do not worry about ssp when doing their tick lists and claiming 'lifers'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. Hm. The advantage of this is the variety of angles and behaviours, the big disadvantage is that, at thumbnail,none of that comes out very well. It's almost an image better as an FP than in the article. I'd support it on commons, think I need to think a little more here. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 20:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but not outstanding photo, limited EV. --Tagooty (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Grey-crowned Babblers 1605.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the most important western film ever made, that has had a long-lasting impact since it's initial release. This copy is also a great quality copy of this film.
Question: The pose seems odd, but the photo's fantastic. Would you say this pose is relatively normal for the species? Because that's really my only hangup here. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 11:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this position would be typical. For most interesting frog photos the animal has been disturbed unfortunately (as I think it was hear, but don't remember). Same applies here; this guy moved after he was disturbed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'll at least Weak support and think about it. It's such a great photo except the weird pose. 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Support The odd pose will attract viewers to lookup the Wikipedia article, one of the criteria for FP. They have sticky toe pads that aid clinging as demonstrated by this image. --Tagooty (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point. Upgrading my vote. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 02:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wouldn't have minded a tiny bit more depth of field, but it's a strong, detailed image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 11:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit, Charles. I get on kinda still half asleep because my sleep's broken right now, I scroll down, giant photo of scary spider. It's an amazing photo, so have a support, but that was a bit of a shock. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 11:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning macro image, good EV. --Tagooty (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think the photo is perfect - it looks to me like his head moved very slightly - it's also a fairly iconic image of him, compare, say, [13], and his grave here, or this set of exhibition photos. I think the historic merit, the quality, and the paucity of images of him excuses some things. I'm also not entirely sure the issues aren't just down to him being African-American: I could totally see "darker skin, so longer exposure so the facial details come out".
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 03:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom: This is a well executed photo of a notable person that appears to be frequently used. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
,_Parque_natural_de_la_Arr%C3%A1bida,_Portugal,_2020-07-23,_DD_43.jpg)
_larvae.jpg)
_male_3.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Keila.jpg)
.jpg)
_nymph.jpg)
_3.jpg)
.jpg)
. Little too similar, maybe to put both in the article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 21:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
_female_on_Persian_silk_tree_(Albizia_julibrissin).jpg)
_3.jpg)
_(titel_op_object),_RP-F-2001-7-1639A-8.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
,_Pistol_Bay,_Pafos,_Chipre,_2021-12-12,_DD_12.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_5.jpg)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_male_with_leaf.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.jpg)