Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 09:55:50 (UTC)
Original – Pink-necked Green Pigeon (Treron vernans) male, Kent Ridge Park, Singapore
Reason
High quality image encyclopaedic image. I think it's unusual to be able to get this perspective on them in the canopy (and feeding on the figs), but this particular tree had an embankment above it and happened to be fruiting during my short visit to Singapore.
Support It's a bit noisy on the chest and the tail's blurred, but this is a really nice capture nevertheless. The article is a stub which worries some, but not me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – "really nice capture" per Charles. Would be nice if the article was a little longer. Bammesk (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, good images demand better articles :) Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely capture. I've put it in the taxobox for the main family page and expanded the species stub for the bargain. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be nice to have a pic of the female to nominate as well, but this is good for the male. Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 10:01:04 (UTC)
Original – Mangrove Pitta (Pitta megarhyncha), Pulau Ubin, Singapore
Reason
High quality images in natural mangrove habitat. 1/8 sec exposure! There are some photos on commons with decent resolution, but poor quality generally, and those are all of the bird that was being baited at Singapore Botanic Gardens in 2014 in unnatural habitat.
Support - Works for me. Mattximus (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I learnt all about pittas the other week reading the (now featured) [[pitta|article on the genus. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it looks a bit unbalanced. I think it would look better if the right side and the bottom were cropped a little. Bammesk (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop – Bammesk (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer crop. MER-C 10:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop, prefer crop; didn't like all the blurred foreground. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just an aside: I was attacked by ants laying prone taking this picture. This is not the first photo that this was the case! I can gladly report that Singapore ants hurt a lot less than some of the Australian ones. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think you're the only one. When I started taking macro insect shots on lovely hot days I went out in shorts. Not any more! Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – --Janke | Talk 09:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - is the white spot below her hands supposed to be there? MER-C 10:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it looks like a fragment fallen from the flower or another piece of scrap - not a defect in the photo. But clone it out if you find it disturbing - won't change the EV... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, if it was in the original photo (as opposed to overlooked damage) it's all good. MER-C 15:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call, and I could easily go either way. It doesn't look like any of the other damage, so it could be natural, but there's no obvious cause of it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 20:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only things I might have done in addtion would be smooth out that odd dark patch that forms a very clear curve right of her head (kind of like a dark halo) - I'd probably just smooth out the edge a smidgen, though; the sort of upside-down maple leaf-shaped dark blob in the upper right; and the small dark lozenge-shaped blob right against the left hand side near the bottom. Those are very minor flaws, though, in an excellent restoration. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that dark spot, too, but I thought it's a liver spot. --Janke | Talk 09:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring, not to her hand, but the left side of the image. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 00:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks all. Addressing the above in order: I do think the white spot is supposed to be there. Well, "supposed" in the sense of being in the photo rather than on the photo. I'd rather not clone it out for that reason. Thanks for the annotations, Adam. I've had a go at addressing those issues. The halo is, of course, more challenging than the others, since it's a large change in shading. I tried to do some blending. Thoughts? @Adam Cuerden, MER-C, and Janke: — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite nicely done! You're very good at this! Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Helen Keller circa 1920 - restored.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support & Comment Could something be done about the grain? --Janke | Talk 09:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried gaussian denoising as well as a high-pass grain removal tool, but it wasn't an improvement, first because of softening of facial details, and second because of the softening of the tonal contrast conveyed by the grain. If you notice closely I have preserved the original's grain. On a sidenote: this is a glass negative and the grain is on the emulsion, so in that sense it is part of the artwork. Bammesk (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question How are we supposed to judge historical photos for FP? Has anyone got standards or benchmarks? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, this is a process question, a good place for it is WT:FPC. In short, the FP criteria has some cues, it also links to here for examples. My personal take is in this nom in small print marked "sidenote". In it you see the words "integral", "purposeful-and-material", "historic integrity", which are somewhat subjective. Also looking at existing FPs is informative and shows some precedence. Bammesk (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I'm kind of uncomfortable with the lack of grain in the lower left, and the contrast seems a little off. Can this be tweaked a bit more? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I touched up that corner and did an upload. The original doesn't have a lot of range there. What do you think? Bammesk (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a bit better! Thank you! Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now when you say that, I note that the grain is softer in all corners - therefore, it must be either due to the reproduction of the glass negative, or from a print made from that negative. To me, the "grain" looks more like the texture of a matte photo paper than photographic grain. My weak support (above) still stands. --Janke | Talk 10:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Janke, this is a direct scan of the glass negative (there is no paper), see these links [1], [2], see the fields: Medium, Reproduction Number, Digital ID. Bammesk (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC) . . . I found other examples. Here is one [3], [4] where original is print, reproduction is film negative, digital image is a scan of film negative. Here is another [5], [6] where original is glass negative, there are two reproductions (a direct digital scan, and a film negative), digital image on LOC website is the direct digital scan (not derived from the film negative).[reply]
People tend to touch glass negatives by their corners and edges. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 17:07:32 (UTC)
Original – The Belle Tout Lighthouse is a decommissioned lighthouse and British landmark located at Beachy Head, East Sussex close to the town of Eastbourne. It has been called "Britain's most famous inhabited lighthouse" because of its striking location and use in film and television.
CSS mockup of a crop.
Reason
Commons FP of this famous, heritage listed British (former) lighthouse.
Weak oppose Checking a few things, it kind of feels like taking this from so near, as opposed to zoomed in a bit, has made a lighthouse in a dramatic landscape look like it's on a bit of flat ground with nothing interesting nearby. It's a good shot of the building, but very weak as a depiction of somewhere noted for being a really impressive location. Hell, there's a bit of the White Cliffs of Dover on the right, but it focuses on a boring field on the left. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 07:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something about the perspective and/or composition is throwing me off. Especially at thumbnail, it almost looks tilt-shifted. Like a toy by a sandbox. Perhaps also, similar to what Adam said, owing in some part to the choice to make it overlook a lawn rather than the ocean? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, to me it looks like barrel distortion of a wide angle lens, which is interesting to see occasionally (if a composition supports it). Different than the typical perspective-corrected images that we usually get. Bammesk (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the whole image seems to be leaning clockwise. A correction of the horizon could fix this optical illusion - I don't think that's barrel distortion on the left wall, the house is built bulging... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the 2nd floor wall was built with a real tilt, that's the architecture, not lens or camera. I don't agree with the whole image needing a horizon correction, the 2nd floor column and the first floor wall-edge right under it are perfectly vertical, and they are in the center of the image with the least distortion, so the camera alignment is Ok. Btw this is FP in commons [7], I think the consensus there is that the distortion is part of the charm. Bammesk (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's really getting me is that the composition is so dominated by a gravel or sand-filled enclosure, showing everything in it, an out-of focus field, and the lighthouse almost feels like an afterthought. You could trim a bit from the bottom and vastly improve the composition, moving the emphasis upwards. It still wouldn't be ideal - not enough sea for a picture of a lighthouse - but it's a start. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the perspective feels weird. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a little noisy, but otherwise fine. MER-C 17:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not really convinced by the mist, but it does give an unusual atmosphere to the pic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mist certainly adds EV if added to the Point Reyes article - as a former resident of the area :P Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – I'm not at all happy with the lighting in his shot; left part is way too dark, possibly due to uneven cloud cover. (My own photos from a visit in 1993 aren't up to FP standards, either... ;-) --Janke | Talk 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption in this article calls it Badlands which says in its lead: "Badlands often have a spectacular color display that alternates from dark black/blue coal stria to bright clays to red scoria". I looked at the image again and it seems like a combination of uneven cloud cover and the terrain itself. Bammesk (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fine with the soft lighting here, as it helps preserve shadow detail which is useful for high-res shots like this. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is too small. Is there a bigger one? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Charles's assessment - this image doesn't quite clear the bar compared to our existing reproductions of paintings. It's definitely a featureable subject if you can find a better reproduction. MER-C 17:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2019 at 19:37:56 (UTC)
Original – The Palais Galliera, also formally known as the Musée de la Mode de la Ville de Paris, and formerly known as Musée Galliera, is a museum of fashion and fashion history located at 10, avenue Pierre 1er de Serbie, in the 16th arrondissement of Paris, France.
Reason
Next entry in my text file of potential FPs is this Commons FP (featured unanimously).
Notability is a good start, these are great documents of the original production. It's also a nice example of what restoration can do: Three images, cut to pieces, reconnected after at least a century and a half. And it shows the value of high-quality, consistent scanning. More notes on the File description page.
Support – good-quality image, and particularly impressive restoration TSP (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Eugène Du Faget - Costume designs for Guillaume Tell - 1-3. Laure Cinti-Damoreau as Mathilde, Adolphe Nourrit as Arnold Melchtal, and Nicolas Levasseur as Walter Furst.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For such a major opera, we really had very little illustrative content. Having found this as part of the Gioachino Rossini FAC push it had the nice added bonus of improving the opera's article.
It's from a pre-photographic era, so it being an illustration is expected. It does a good job of showing Rossini's sphere of influence; illustrates his time in Britain in an interesting way, and is a pretty good example of that late 18th/early 19th century caricature that highly popular at the time. There's some nice details to it, like the crowd behind them. The vertical space is a little empty, but on the acceptable side.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2019 at 08:59:41 (UTC)
Original – The general map for the Turgot map of Paris, showing how the pieces, which were printed on separate pages, fit together.
Reason
The last sheet of the map, which is explicitly discussed in the article about it, clearly deserves to be part of the set as much as any other part. However, modifying a complicated set nomination in progress is just disruptive and awful; so... yeah. Better to handle it as a separate vote. Whilst this may not be used in other articles than the one on the map itself, that's going to be true of a lot of the set.
Support I think it's an important addition if the set's meant to be complete. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 23:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a gallery of images (all FP on Commons) that failed to reach quorum for FP here at the bottom of my User page. Delighted if anyone renominates them! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per below. MER-C 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is it normal for these insects to have "buckled" eyes? That was the reason I didn't vote last time... --Janke | Talk 11:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke: No it's not normal. This one seems to have suffered some head trauma. Here's what a healthy looking specimen looks like: [8]. Kaldari (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The facade seems ever so slightly tilted clockwise to me; not sure whether it's just an illusion of the architecture. The front columns are perpendicular all right, but the visible inner one does appear to be leaning outward. So the building isn't perfectly straight, but is it that the inside column is leaning outwards, or that the facade actually leans inwards? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The building is vertical in my opinion, but maybe this discussion can answer your question -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good clear image of this temple mostly clear of tourist/visitor distractions. A smidge unsharp at full res, but good enough given its size. Personally I see little EV in the second article Isan language, but being lead image in its main article is sufficient. --jjron (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2019 at 03:52:08 (UTC)
Original – Shop Until You Drop, graffiti by Banksy in Mayfair, London.
Reason
A good example of Banksy's work, a notable anonymous graffiti artist. This one is about consumerism and has been in the Political and social themes section of his article for six years, and in Consumerism article for two years.
Like most of Charles' work, the only real thing worth criticising are a comparison between the ideal image and the vagaries of the natural world and its refusal to pose for rhe camera, the blighter. I think this one is particularly good: whilst the lower legs and paws can't be seen, the key species-identifying traits are all visible, and the flower field is visually engaging. Crop is maybe slightly tighter than ideal, but by no means unacceptable. Renomination from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spotted hyena
Question – Is this a male or a female? They know, but we don't... ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the renomination Adam Cuerden. Having had a good look in the right place, he's a male.Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Stupid question, but how do you tell a female hyena's pseudopenis from a male's actual penis? Or did you look elsewhere? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 21:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you quickly admit you had never heard of a pseudopenis and go back to "don't know"! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, spotted hyenas are... a special case. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 22:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, good quality and EV. Mattximus (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I appreciate the image quality and difficulty of capturing the subject in a quite natural setting, to me the absence of most of the legs and the feet precludes this on encyclopaedic grounds. That's some important parts of the animal completely missing. Quite worthy on Commons, but not for WP. --jjron (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There's a different version in our article on the painting (with very different colours) and this one (which was uploaded by a blocked user) has questionable licensing/sourcing information. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppetry concern is not a problem, the operator of the accounts is still in good standing on this wiki as the socks haven't been used to violate policy or stack en.wp FPC. See the comments with my admin hat on here. And surely the colors are more faithful than the print as you can see here [9] thanks --LivioAndronico(talk) 18:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not used in article on the painting. And colours? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But is it really so complicated to see that the white balance is wrong? Open photoshop or another program and see if the white balance is correct. It seems simple enough, plus it's a scanned and badly not a photo. Also you should be careful and see that the article I put is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Minniti. Maybe it's better to read first, thanks --LivioAndronico(talk) 09:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is not used in Boy with a Basket of Fruit. Maybe it's better to read my comment carefully! The article on one of the painter's young boyfriends is not as significant as the article of the painting itself. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and in fact nobody has named this article, read well! where would I have nominated him? you are doing everything by yourself --LivioAndronico(talk) 17:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
White balance is better in this: [10], note the white sleeve, it is blue in this candidate! Janke | Talk 14:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because is blue! is the effect of the dark! --LivioAndronico(talk) 17:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edits on the image page, it was originally white in your image, and you edited it to blue... --Janke | Talk 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you meant the other sleeve, you're actually right. This is actually incorrect but I cannot change it. Then retreat, even for the meaningless votes of others, thank you--LivioAndronico(talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Residual moiré from scanning a printed reproduction. Hard to see, but it's there - do a few "Sharpen more" filters in Photoshop, and the moiré pops out clearly. Not so in the image in the article about the painting. Janke | Talk 14:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
honestly it is absurd for me .... but ok I understand --LivioAndronico(talk) 18:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 17:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have the correct orientation. Is Google Maps wrong? There appears to be much more water than in this image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Water levels are indeed lower in this image - there is an area of paler rock surrounding the lake that will be flooded if the reservoir were full. Google Maps depicts lakes and reservoirs as always full, even if it's a dry salt lake. MER-C 10:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google Earth shows it full too. Perhaps an FP should show the dam full? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dam reservoirs go up and down over time, that's one of the primary reasons for building a dam (the other being electricity generation). I think this image is just fine by itself, it shows a nominal level, it shows the sediments accumulated on the banks. Also, this not being a map or a diagram, there is no need for a particular orientation, it's just a photograph. Bammesk (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – EV and sourced to NASA with a capture date. Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2019 at 03:11:52 (UTC)
Original – Shirley Temple in 1948 wearing a pearl necklaceEdit 1 Everything complained about fixed!
Reason
A beautifully taken picture that has obviously been restored with high quality. I saw no grains or poor lighting in this picture either. It is used as the main picture for the Shirley Temple article and seems to encompass everything a Featured Picture is all about.
Also oppose for the Photoshopped background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp and Janke: Is it just the crop at the top that's a problem? That's pretty readily fixable. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 18:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the full version so you can't do anything about the sides. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the quite forced smile, either. If you can fix that, well... ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The background is not the original, it is photoshopped in software, so this is a derivative image. It would be nice to know something about the original photo (the source photo). Bammesk (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp and Janke: I think I've fixed all issues you raised. Smile, sides, top. I had to reconstruct the sides a bit, so gave her tentacle arms. I think that's within the range of acceptable presumption as to what's out of frame. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 21:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Does this have EV in some of the film articles? MER-C 20:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support if someone can confirm that this is a realistic representation of this location. If so it's an eye-catching representation of the cathedral cloister with good control of lighting (often difficult in those types of place). Usage in article could be better however. --jjron (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support & Comment This is shot with a 14 mm lens on a camera with 1.53 crop factor, thus the 35 mm equivalent is 21.5 mm - not an extreme wide angle, so the distortion is moderate. OTOH, the slightly curved floor suggests a stitched image - but it looks OK to me, anyway. --Janke | Talk 12:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that in sufficiently old buildings, some curvature can happen just from centuries of feet, or from an intentional rain gutter (this may not have originally been as enclosed). Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 15:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:The Cloisters at Gloucester Cathedral.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2019 at 21:31:22 (UTC)
Original – Airavatesvara Temple incorporates a chariot-shaped agra-mandapam, with pillars and Nandi on top, built by Rajaraja Chola II in the 12th century CE, Chola Empire.
Transcluding nomination. MER-C 21:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Undoubtedly a worthy subject, but image is not FP standard. Cut off on both sides, awkward perspective, article is littered with images and this is used in little more than a gallery. --jjron (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; seems to have been stuffed into the frame in the hope that the car will not go over any bumps serious enough to knock it over because it would burst out and we'd have to stop and stuff it in there again. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 21:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This may cut it on Commons, but is not suitable for WP:FPC. The 'artsy' reflections on the shiny black background to me produce an awkward composition that adds nothing to encyclopaedic value. Seen in thumbnail as it is in the article the image is dominated by dead black space. For an encyclopaedia these type of photos are far better taken on a matte white background where the subject takes up the bulk of the frame. --jjron (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely taken photograph that is definitely FP quality. Goveganplease (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's with the sudden standqardiation rush? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 15:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – sharp and good lighting, but prefer slightly tighter crop. Bammesk (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fruit would likely stand out more from a dark background than a white one. feminist (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Fuyu persimmon fruits, one cut open.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 03:09:21 (UTC)
Original – Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord, 1848
Reason
Unanimously voted as a featured picture on Commons in January 2018 and a second round finalist in Picture of the Year 2018. The painting's article states that it is "one of the best known Norwegian paintings" and "an excellent example of romantic nationalism in Norway". Quite a realistic painting too.
Promoted File:Adolph Tidemand & Hans Gude - Bridal Procession on the Hardangerfjord - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support One can see the individual scales. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 22:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Charles, I ran this through a gentle unsharp mask as I find it a little soft at full size - personally I think it improved it considerably for those zooming in. Would you be able to put up an alt version? Otherwise a very good capture. Closer, please take this as a Support if it needs a fifth before the time runs out. --jjron (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't uploaded it. Just ran it through a filter when I was looking in Photoshop and thought it came up better. I thought you'd rather do it yourself if it was to be done though. Nothing severe. I can try uploading one if you want, but not sure when I'll get around to it, and it's been so long since I uploaded any images I can't even remember how to do it! --jjron (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. From comments ovedr the years, we all see sharpening a little differently. At a 'normal' viewing size, sharpening improves the look of a picture, but the same image will be rejected at Commons FP for sharpening artefacts visible in close-up. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs one more... --Janke | Talk 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Common tiger (Danaus genutia genutia) male underside.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 19:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Could also be the picture of the day for next year's International Women's Day. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. After considerable consideration. Uncomfortably bright background especially on the ground. Cutoff character at left gives awkward composition. Image quality is poor at full res (okay, it isn't so bad if downsized, and still should meet size guidelines, but this is a classic case of where bigger isn't necessarily better). Per the article, this was not a notable event in her life - in a Featured Article, the only mention of this event that I can find is in the image caption; many other protests are specifically discussed in the article body. And we already have a featured image of Ms Pankhurst here heading the article, so another image should add significant EV. Just too many issues. --jjron (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Posterised, loads of damage. I've been wanting to do this image for ages, but this cannot be an FP-quality source, Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 16:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Although it is a nice picture, the quality isn't up to par with FP standards. Goveganplease (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jjron, especially due to the EV since this incident is not mentioned in the article. Mattximus (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Walk Like an Egyptian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.99.182 (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Struck !vote, as IPs are not allowed to do that. (Only commenting is allowed.) ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2019 at 22:05:09 (UTC)
Original – Set design for Act III, Scene 2 of La Esmeralda, the most ambitious, and sadly last opera by French composer Louise Bertin.
Reason
A fine example of set design, from the première of the work. Charles Cambon tends not to go full colour like Chaperon did, but his chiaroscuro work is pretty excellent.
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How can we tell if this is not too dark (compared with other images online)? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: The Bibliotheque Nationale de France seem to have quite good colour fidelity overall. One could possibly justify lightening it a little - there's clearly white ink used on it for highlights, so the paper is not going to be white - in order to bring out detail, but I'd say that this is very likely the colours for what it currently looks like. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Alamy image may be too light I suppose. There's no provenance. Why not lightenit /alter tone/do whatever a little? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a little more contrast won't hurt. Five minutes. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 23:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I gave it a slight lift. Nothing too extreme, but enough to get an improvement in without overdoing it. It's meamt t be a poorly-lit garret room, after all. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 23:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderfully detailed and engaging sketch. Illustrates Cambon's work well. Not opposed to a slight brightening, but will leave it up to Adam to determine the final word on that (it's fine as is for mine). --jjron (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment – there is a round spot at x,y,=(1860,2975), you removed a similar spot at (3390,3825), I am just wondering if it belongs there? Bammesk (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can argue either way on that type of thing, but, on the whole, it seems like a drip. I think it's probably worth removing. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 00:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Charles-Antoine Cambon - La Esmeralda, Act 3, Scene 2 set.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A particularly beautiful photomechanical print (Which I presume is something like a photochrom) for a rather obscure opera. The paper had clearly discoloured, so I nudged it back towards original colours a bit. There's a rather art deco looking poster based on it as well, but this has far nicer colour and linework. It shows him climbing a mountain with the corpse of his beloved to disappear into an ideal sunrise as the old gods and they that worshipped them fade out of existence with the dawn of Christianity. It was the sort of stuff that was kind of a thing for a while around 1895 or so. You also get Elgar's "Scenes from The Saga of King Olaf" around then, for instance, before the rise of the Verisimo and modernist movements.
Carlos Schwabe (credited as Carloz Schwabe for reasons best known to himself - it's in the signature as well), restored by Adam Cuerden
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 10:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I wonder why there are two images nearly identical in the article though. This one is clearly superior however. Mattximus (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article had no images, so I thought "Eh... the poster is somewhat different.... I'll throw it in." I'd imagine the poster will be first to go in any chop. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 17:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is [11] a better pic? I think one of those two should definitely be promoted, but I'm torn as to which. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 22:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are different, it's a subjective call, I would support either (FWIW this one shows more of her). Bammesk (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of torn between liking and hating the many early-20th century fads that are all in one image - the fade out, the very pale skin in a white dress, the low-contrast between hair and background. Let's say Support for now. If this one doesn't pass, I'll restore the other. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination, it was mentioned that more contrast is needed, so I added some. I also removed a few spots. Yann (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the image, but completely desaturating it makes it look less formal, and more like a cheap photocopy to me. Can a little bit more of the original slight colouration be added back in? Compare [12], where everthing just seems a little more high quality for reasons that are probably a mix between psychological, and differing saturations emphasising a luminosity gradient. I mean, the hair blends into the background here. It doen't in [13] - and the only real differece is desaturation. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes, one shouldn't complain too much, and just do something. Support Alt 1 or 2Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 12:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: I would support either, but could you please wait for a consensus before changing the image in the article? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, force of habit when I'm doing the nomination. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 13:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - posterization in both noticeably worse than the original. MER-C 15:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think Alt 1 is definitely an improvement and I am leaning to support. How about laying Alt 1 with 50% opacity on top of the first uploaded version here, would that be an improvement? Bammesk (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 1 is a restoration, there's heavy work to remove scratches, so the damage would then be right back and present. The vertical lines would reappear in the background; her cheeks would be scratched up again, etc. If you're saying you want the levels adjusted, that's pretty easily done. Hold on. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 10:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 – in the face area, the shades have more range (detail) in Alt 1 compared to Alt 2. In two spots: x,y=(777,750) and (860,757), the slightly brighter touchups in this version might be a good idea? but not a big deal. Bammesk (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference for Alt 2. --Yann (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1 or alt 2. MER-C 18:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 2, though I think the ideal is alt 2's saturation with the levels about halfway between alt 1 and 2. Qono (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 as first choice, Support Alt 2 as second choice. Tend to agree with Bammesk, but both would work. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Mrs. Fiske, "Love finds the way" - Zaida Ben Yusuf. LCCN2006677585 - Restoration, levels tweaked.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 00:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2019 at 04:44:23 (UTC)
Original 1 – Santuzza begs Turiddu to stay with her, instead of continuing his affair with Lola.
Original 2 - Alfio, Lola's husband, hugs Turiddu, challenging him to a duel per Sicillian custom, and Turiddu bites his ear, accepting the duel, and draws blood, indicating it will be to the death, setting up the end tragedy.
Reason
Two particularly fine images showing key scenes in the opera. Since both have similar damage to the lower left hand corner, and there's clearly a small logo there, I left that small bit of damage in, to avoid misleading.
Comment – file tags say the images may not be in public domain outside US. Do images have to be in public domain in their home country? Bammesk (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – never mind, images are in public domain and in Commons. Bammesk (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a requirement, we have a few that are en-wiki only. I'm just being sufficiently cautious here, as Gallica say it's public domain and anonymous, but there's one other claim on the internet that, if true, would raise questions. For which the answers are almost certainly "still Public domain" - That said, the Commons discussion seems to think they're fine for there. @Bammesk:Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 10:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thanks, Getty can be unreliable. Bammesk (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC) . . BTW the ping didn't come across, ping only works if it's followed by a user signature in the same edit (in one edit).[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 22:54:32 (UTC)
Original – Joseph Numa, John Potter, and James Deal of the Coldstream Guards just after their return from the Crimean War in 1856
Reason
Stumbled across this while checking out a new archive. I think it's a particularly nice bit of ephemera, good enough for Queen Victoria to get a personal negative of the image.
Hughes & Mullins after Cundall & Howlett; restored by Adam Cuerden
Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 22:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Interesting 19th-C. military garb – outlandish to say the least – but the image is awfully muddy. Sca (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the nature of carbon prints. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 15:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about a slight gamma correction like the demo below? Small size demo only - Suggestion for gamma correction --Janke | Talk 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's quite a bit too much. Remember, these were darkish red British army uniforms, probably dark blue, red, or black trousers (they're clearly not the white trousers used in some regiments, and they're black now, but these things change - so the image shouldn't be made too light. I could see it a bit lighter, but given we know the approximate colours of the uniforms, and those hats are quite dark - dark brown or black, and given a Crimean tan, I don't think we're actually that unrealistic. Still, shall I just upload over? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 17:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I tweaked gamma a bit. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 18:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we go by the book, this photo hasn't been in the article(s) the required amount of time... another, a b/w cropped version, sure, but how shall the rules be read? Just saying! ;-P --Janke | Talk 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, replacing a lower-quality version is considered a stable useage: "this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image." Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 20:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a quibble, but they aren't the same photograph. They're two different photographs of the same men. TSP (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say variant photographs more than different photographs. The changes are very small. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 12:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrusd, just Withdraw, this. I'll bring it back in a week or two, with a nomination that hasn't been thoroughly derailed. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 13:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed they were more bright red, as in this illustration, no? – Sca (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: There's no clear visual distinction between the darkness of trousers and jacket, and we know they had black trousers, so either chemically reds showed up darker than they were in these photos - which I'm not sure we can fix - or the jacket was darker than we think. In any case, we KNOW that hat is black. We can experiment with lifting at specific points to try and get a distinction, but making the hat and trousers light is misleading. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I wonder if that has anything to do with the use of red in night-adaption goggles and red lights as night-vision conditioning in submarines? Just a thought. – Sca (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful, but it needs a scale. There is no way to tell if this is 1cm long or 30 cm long. Can this be added? Mattximus (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, the file description [14] says length is 7.5 cm. I think that's the size of the shell. The uploader has a huge portfolio and records the lengths in file descriptions, for example 4.8 cm here. Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some of these with a small white bar on the bottom indicated the size. I think this is important and rather easy to add. Mattximus (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this:
I see your point. I have advocated for a scale mark on some noms. In cases when the photographer is an active editor, I think it's best that they do any modifications. In this case given the size is on the file page, I am Ok supporting the nom as is, although adding a scale would be an improvement. Bammesk (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2019 at 22:24:16 (UTC)
Original – Anguish, c. 1878
Reason
Another painting that was a second round candidate for POTY 2018. From the National Gallery of Victoria website: In Anguish, Schenck has given the ewe clearly recognisable human characteristics, such as determination and sorrow, so that the viewer immediately identifies with its predicament and emotions. The sinister murder of crows also appear organised and patiently await a moment of weakness. Schenck is here metaphorically examining a broader human condition in the context of an animal painting.
Support Though I suspect the article on Schenck will need some bulking up before this goes to the main page. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 02:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Physicist Stephen Hawking enjoying zero gravity with a huge smile on his face. His article describes this event. The photo is not technically as good as it could be, for example file size is small (797KB), but good EV and a rare composition of him. This was in preparation for his space flight aiming to: "increase public interest in spaceflight and to show the potential of people with disabilities". His space flight didn't happen, but this photo did! This is FP on Commons.
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some artefacting, especially on the woman's trousers, I don't like, but it's a great image, and sometimes, drawing the reader in is enough EV. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 15:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure how you judge tilt in this kind of scene.... There's not that many definite clues. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My camera has a built in electronic level and I used it in this case. JJ Harrison (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – your camera probably has a nuclear power plant inside!! not that there is anything wrong with that :-) Bammesk (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is. If he gets cancer, he won't be able to photograph birds! ;) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 14:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though we have another image, I suppose there is EV due to different plumage. Mattximus (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, and as stated, one picture cannot cover all the EV for this species. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even though I'm pretty sure this is an overwrite violation on Commons as the previous version is a different image. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent image. Mattximus (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - It's not appropriate to overwrite someone else's picture with your own in order to take its filename. This was likely just a mistake, but needs to be remedied. I will most certainly strike this and switch to support once it's fixed. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I was using a bulk upload tool and didn't receive any overwrite warning! JJ Harrison (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above. Thanks for fixing. @JJ Harrison: which upload tool did you use? I'll investigate that issue. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
_female.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_male_close_up.jpg)
.jpg)
Request withdrawn --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
_Bulgaria.jpg)
_2.jpg)
_male_underside.jpg)
_female.jpg)
Question: How can we tell if this is not too dark (compared with other images online)? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
Original 1 – Santuzza begs Turiddu to stay with her, instead of continuing his affair with Lola.
Original 2 - Alfio, Lola's husband, hugs Turiddu, challenging him to a duel per Sicillian custom, and Turiddu bites his ear, accepting the duel, and draws blood, indicating it will be to the death, setting up the end tragedy.
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Belle_Tout_lighthouse_March_2017.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boy_with_a_Basket_of_Fruit-Caravaggio_(1593).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_fighting.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/1d/20130704211823%21Minnie_Maddern_Fiske%2C_seated%2C_Zaida_Ben-Yusuf%2C_1896_%28crop%29.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haliotis_laevigata_01.JPG){kind=link}
