Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2018

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.


	Older Archive
	Miscellaneous Archive
2004:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2005:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2006:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2007:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2008:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2009:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2010:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2011:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2012:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2013:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2014:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2015:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2016:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2017:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2018:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2019:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2020:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2021:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2022:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2023:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
2024:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Diagram of the Sun

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2018 at 07:00:56 (UTC)

Reason: Featured on Commons, cool diagram
Articles in which this image appears: Sun, Stellar structure, Radiation zone, Convection zone, Granule (solar physics), Solar core, Tachocline, etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: Kelvinsong

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection of astronomy books is that the convective zone is pictured with arrows similar to File:ConvectionCells.svg and the radiative zone with radial arrows. The glow of the core serves the former, so that's fine. Failed last time for procedural reasons, but deserves another hearing on merit. Otherwise, no problems. Support. MER-C 19:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also attest to the scientific accuracy of this diagram. MER-C 19:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caution I am not an expert in heliophysics but as a layperson this looks good to me, and certainly helpful to Wikipedia readers if the content is accurate. --Pine^✉ 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note about this nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. GMG ^talk 10:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a very good diagram that was created to illustrate a set of articles about the structure of stars, later part of the template that transcludes the common information in the articles. See Template:Structure of the Sun and the articles linked in the template. Not only does the illustration carefully follow the sizes of the regions for the sun mentioned in the articles, the color transition from white hot interior darkening to deeper red near the surface illustrates the way the temperature decreases outward. (Hot objects like iron cool from white to orange to red.) StarryGrandma (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It compares reasonably well to this NASA image, apart from the subsurface flows. Solar faculae aren't mentioned, but that's probably okay. Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sun poster.svg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passiflora incarnata

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2018 at 19:33:12 (UTC)

Reason: Made the finals of POTD last year, lead image for both the species and genus. Should be a fairly obvious shoo-in.
Articles in which this image appears: Passiflora, Passiflora incarnata
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: PumpkinSky

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 05:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The structure of pistils and stamen is verey peculiar in this species (see [1]), and, unfortunately, this flower is either immature, or shot from an angle that won't show it clearly. --Janke | Talk 09:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Janke, EV is low since the remarkable feature of this plant is missing or shot at an inappropriate angle. Mattximus (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because creator is a banned user. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So he is. I withdraw this nomination. MER-C 14:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke, Mattximus, Charlesjsharp, MER-C. - The NMI User (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Atlantis over the Mediterranean Sea

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2018 at 05:43:25 (UTC)

Reason: Lede image for STS-129, and informative photo of the shuttle in space with its cargo bay doors open. While artistically unremarkable, it has good educational value, especially when viewed at 100% to make the details of the shuttle most visible.
Articles in which this image appears: STS-129
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there
Creator: Expedition 21 crew

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 05:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I understand the historical and EV aspects of this image, but too much of the shuttle has blown highlights for me to be comfortable supporting. MER-C 19:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STS-129 Atlantis Ready to Fly

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2018 at 05:27:54 (UTC)

Reason: Very interesting image, informative regarding the structure of the launch platform, nice colors, and used in multiple articles
Articles in which this image appears: STS-129, Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center, Space Shuttle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Getting there
Creator: NASA/Bill Ingalls

~~Support as nominator~~Support alt as original's nominator – Pine^✉ 05:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support Bammesk's alt. --Pine^✉ 18:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this level of noise acceptable nowadays? Counterbalancing that is that this picture is irreplaceable. Not sure how to vote yet. MER-C 19:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate (changed vote). MER-C 08:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support (either version) – I'm not bothered by the noise, since the details are sharp enough. Somebody could give the sky (but nothing else) a bit of de-noising, though. --Janke | Talk 19:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT (changed vote) – EV, and agree with Janke. Bammesk (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the noise is acceptable here and denoising would be very tricky. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I introduced an alternate denoised version (denoised just the sky area, it wasn't easy, but doable) and changed my vote. Pinging those who voted: @Pine, MER-C, Janke, and Charlesjsharp: ---- Bammesk (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT - The NMI User (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT --Yann (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:STS-129 Atlantis Ready to Fly - edit1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wimpfen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 13:33:20 (UTC)

Reason: It serves well to illustrate the WP article (which, admittedly, could be more detailed), and is a fine example of an oil painting showing an engagement in the Thirty Years' War (exploding magazine cart included).
Articles in which this image appears: Battle of Wimpfen
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War
Creator: Sebastiaen Vrancx

Support as nominator – L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the one who found where it is hanging, and added most of the file description only hours ago. It's got explosions, gore, action and educational value. (As in "Don't mess with the Imperial Army".) Nominate it now, before Putin flogs it to the mullahs. ;) Plus: You would thrill an interested IP user. 2.247.243.158 (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A photo of a painting should definitely fulfil the minimum size requirement for a FPC. This one doesn't. --Janke | Talk 14:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wp:Featured picture criteria says "Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height; larger sizes are generally preferred. [...] Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired."
The file has 1,920 × 1,069 pixels. No mercy on this point?
Mmh, I guess I could email the Heremitage and ask if they'd supply a higher res photograph for WP, if this fails. 2.247.243.158 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on size grounds. The waiver doesn't apply -- one could theoretically, but fairly easily, get a higher resolution scan of this painting. MER-C 14:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a low quality scan of a painting that still exists, so an exception should not be made for low resolution. Mattximus (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke, MER-C, Mattximus. - The NMI User (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 19:10:26 (UTC)

Reason: High quality reproduction of a painting with its own article
Articles in which this image appears: A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery and many others
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Joseph Wright of Derby

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Well, 6,527 × 4,581 pixels is a proper size for a photo of a painting! However, this photo appears to be very slightly cropped at the top (see [2]), but since that is mostly only black, it doesn't matter that much. --Janke | Talk 20:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)--Janke | Talk 20:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aesthetically and historically and interesting. Joseph Wright of Derby includes info on light/dark chiaroscuro effect – perhaps it should be the target article? – Sca (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support good image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good resolution and EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wright of Derby, The Orrery.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Village weaver

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 21:20:02 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Village weaver
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – reason for the nomination! Bammesk (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What's a feamle, by the way? MER-C 13:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't sure of her gender assignment, but now she's happy to be a girl!! Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Nice image of subject, but background blur (DOF) is extreme. Sca (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree with you Sca!. Extreme background blur is the ultimate objective in animal portraiture. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with it either - it's a feature, not a bug. MER-C 20:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate objective? Ha. See discussion here. – Sca (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sca, as far as that image, the main subject (which is the flower facing the camera) is out of focus, look at it at full resolution at 100%, it is out of focus, so "that image" has a Depth of field (DOF) problem. The image in this nomination does not have a DOF problem, the main subject is in focus. Read the article on Bokeh, bokeh is supposed to be soft and blurry and out of focus. That's what photographers want it to be. The presence of bokeh is not synonymous with an image having a DOF problem. Bammesk (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That says it all. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the background blur, it focuses on the subject. Which has high EV, and is good quality. Mattximus (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a professional-grade photo with strong EV. Great work Charles. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus cucullatus) female.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssinian black-and-white colobus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 21:32:38 (UTC)

Reason: High quality expressive image of an Ethiopian subspecies. FP on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Abyssinian black-and-white colobus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – nice portrait but used in a gallery only and the infobox image shows more of the body. Bammesk (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But a portrait image is how we best portray mammals (like humans) even though in Wikipedia we tend to put the full body imge as the top right for animals. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the use only in a gallery concern, but there's nothing wrong with the image otherwise. MER-C 10:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, the purpose of the gallery is to compare subspecies, which addresses the concern. Support. MER-C 09:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV anyway. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of the Moon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 07:29:56 (UTC)

Reason: Featured on Commons, nice and correct illustration
Articles in which this image appears: Internal structure of the Moon, Portal:Moon, Moment of inertia factor
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: Kelvin13

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy for scientific review. While I have formal education in astronomy, this is outside my area of expertise. MER-C 17:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The small distances at the centre are touching each other, also the placement could be better. Mattximus (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. In addition, those labels are difficult to read - the contrast should be improved versus the background and the font size increased slightly. MER-C 10:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Earth

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 07:30:00 (UTC)

Reason: Featured on Commons, nice diagram
Articles in which this image appears: Structure of the Earth, Crust (geology), Mantle (geology), etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: Kelvin13

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the reasons why this image wasn't promoted in a previous nomination haven't been addressed. MER-C 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Ditto. Sca (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy for scientific review. MER-C 17:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as last time. Mattximus (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the captions could be more self consistent. "earth" should be capitalised. The Mantle is labelled "rigid" or "stiffer" which sound like synonyms that are supposed to somehow contrast. The basaltic and granitic crust seem to be indistinguishable. (But perhaps cannot be seen on this scale, though I did zoom in to see no difference). Perhaps there should be basaltic crust under the granitic crust too. There is actually more structure known in the mantle which is not hinted at. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 08:23:50 (UTC)

Reason: High EV, good quality picture
Articles in which this image appears: Sun, Corona, Sunspot, etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: Geoff Elston

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit boring. And I can't see it in two of the articles mentioned. I can't remember how many live noms we can have. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember, there isn't a hard limit -- just how many people are willing to tolerate. I'd put the limit at about four or five. Either way, the more nominations the better: the only thing that matters is that we're promoting FPs at less than one a day. MER-C 13:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - substantial JPEG artifacts. MER-C 14:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MER-C - Chris857 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per Charles, MER-C. Sca (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arg e Bam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2018 at 19:06:25 (UTC)

Reason: Featured image on Commons, lead image for its subject. Gotta counter that systemic bias.
Articles in which this image appears: Arg e Bam, Mud, List of castles in Iran, Kerman Province
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Diego Delso

Support as nominator – MER-C 19:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good EV, good quality. But what is this systemic bias? Mattximus (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support 344917661X (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fortaleza de Bam, Irán, 2016-09-23, DD 09.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth and Tail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 12:38:58 (UTC)

Reason: Renomination of this. The criteria mentioned there still stand, and it only fell short by one vote. I was advised that renominating this was a good idea
Articles in which this image appears: Tooth and Tail
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator: Pocketwatch Games, the developers of the game. Uploaded to Commons by Anarchyte

Support as nominator – Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clearly meets featured pictures criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't quite know that this developer has totally worked through how the licenses work. To my knowledge, that they license this screenshot under CCBYSA doesn't actually matter for our purposes, so long as it is wholly derivative of a non-free work, i.e., the game itself. GMG^talk 13:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The game is non-free. This screenshot is free. What's the problem? - hahnchen 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes it derivative of a non-free work does it not? "Free works" that are derivative of non-free works are not actually free. GMG^talk 14:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The copyright holder has freely licensed this image. It doesn't matter that the rest of the work isn't free. - hahnchen 15:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @GreenMeansGo: See images like File:Charlie Murder screenshot 5.png, File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm, and File:IncredipedeScreenshot35.jpg. They're all copyrighted games with freely usable media. The CC BY-SA license here allows for this. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        After some back and forth on Commons, it does appear I'm off in left field. Although it does seem counter-intuitive, but nevermind then I suppose. GMG ^talk 14:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not of interest to most of the general Main Page audience. Sca (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How? I doubt most are interested in this, which is today's featured picture. JOE BRO 64 20:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sca: As opposed to this or this? The image doesn't have to appeal to the general public; there's nothing in the criteria on that. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sca - Why on earth are we telling people what they should/should not be interested in? Seems very elitist. There's also nothing in the criteria that it needs to be a "popular" image. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Statista, less than a third (30.6 percent) of the 7.5+ billion population of the Earth plays video games. Sca (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So? Not being intimately familiar with a subject does not imply not being interested in it. Wikipedia has tons of featured articles on people that no one alive has ever met, events that no one alive took part in, and beliefs that no one subscribes to.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, since only about (apparently) 55.1% of the world has access to the internet, and presumably there is near 100% overlap between those two figures, and 30.6% of the whole is 55.53% of 55.1%, it actually means that this has relevance to more than half of users who are liable to actually see it on the main page. GMG ^talk 15:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also note that "60% Americans play video games daily", and "More than 150 million Americans play video games, and 64% of American households are home to at least one person who plays video games regularly, or at least three hours per week". Source. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even more to the other scale, 30% of people in the world play video games... But outside of that, how many of them know what a video game is, or even the particular consoles are, etc. My mother knows what video games are, and she doesn't play them. I'd suggest that 30% is far higher than pthe amount of people Chester A. Arthur is of interest to; who is todays featured picture. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm willing to forgive 1440p for video games, but 1080p is too small for new games in 2017 or 2018. MER-C 14:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Most games released today are still made for 1080p screens. Home consoles and most PCs cannot render higher resolutions smoothly. In this case, the game is presented in a pixel art style and higher resolutions would make very little difference. - hahnch e n 14:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @MER-C: I can appreciate this, but note that it's not common for games, especially ones by non-AAA companies to be released at extremely high resolutions (they're on their way up, however), and when it comes to games anyway, the image quality does not get noticeably better (unless you're jumping from 480p to 720p or higher), unlike an image of a plant where the intricacies become apparent. Unless you're using a fairly recently released graphics card (let's say GTX 1060+), your computer will suffer noticeable strain when running at 1440p or higher (effectively removing the gameplay element, and now you're watching a pretty slideshow). Humans don't experience the same issues when taking photographs of buildings. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Framerate doesn't matter for a static image - one could temporarily increase the resolution at the expense of framerate to take a screenshot like the nominated image. Regardless, a GTX 950 should be able to render this graphically simple (much simpler than AAA) game at 1440p@30fps easily. 1080p would have been acceptable a few years ago, but as you said, standards are increasing. The bar for FP is higher than top 5%. We should expect better. MER-C 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @MER-C: I mentioned this down below, and it's relevant here. The native resolution for Tooth and Tail is 1080p. And you're probably right in saying that a 9 series could run this game, I was using the 10 series as an example of what the standard will become in the future. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JOE BRO 64 20:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Does not add significant value to article. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whaaaat? Gameplay screenshots are essential for VG articles. They illustrate the game, which is the object of discussion of the article. JOE BRO 64 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: By the same reasoning, this doesn't add much because we can just say "it's a bee". I don't understand where you're coming from here. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gameplay screenshots are essential but there are endless possibilities and of the two illustrating this article, which is better? An image promoted to FP should feature the 'hero' or 'baddy' or core of the game and be in the highest resolution possible. Is this such an image? Is 1080 highest possible? If so, I will happily delete my oppose vote. As for the bee, I don't think it should have been promoted. There is a strong bias here on FP and voters favour images that are top-right. For instance, do you agree with the oppose vote on my monkey below? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Charlesjsharp: In relation to gameplay, the proposed image is better than the split screen. This one shows the HUD, multiple characters, and the graphical style (of course). I will say, however, that if there were an article on split screens in video games, the other one would have a fighting chance.I found this from a developer while searching, and it seems like the game's native resolution is 1080p, and ultra-wide versions (like the ones mentioned in that conversation) would be unrealistic in relation to their depiction of the game, as it was not designed for that resolution (hence the initial thread, I presume). As for the monkey, looking through the article, it looks like it's the best image there. The infobox one is nice but very few of these are portrait. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. I have deleted my oppose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's rare that a screenshot of a strategy game manages to capture a sufficient share of the game's key elements without being excessively cluttered or difficult for those unfamiliar with the game to make sense of. This image accomplishes that. Reasoning given in original nomination holds true.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. To a non-video-gamer, the image is nonsensical. Sca (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: The majority of the HUD is captioned. There's a map in the bottom left, objectives and rules in the top left, and characters scattered around the screen. I will admit that HUD at the center bottom may be a tad confusing to those unaware to how these games usually work, but it's a scroll-able inventory. It's a lot more intuitive than this. I could say the same about some non-video game files, too: File:Sorting quicksort anim.gif, File:Snells law wavefronts.gif, File:Conventional 18-wheeler truck diagram.svg (only numbered, no words), and File:Supercell.svg. There is no requirement for the image to make sense to everyone that sees it. The closest we've got is It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. And again, that is subjective. I didn't look at the supercell image and think "I'd like to learn more about that", but it's still a good image for those who do (and makes a bit more sense when you look at it in the article). Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the context of the "Tooth and Tail" game it's still nonsensical, since the labels (e.g., "Protect the Meat Merchants") mean nothing to the uninitiated. Plus, the whole thing, a screenshot, is rather fuzzy. Not visually accessible to the general reader. Sca (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia images are meant to enhance understanding of an article's text, not to make reading the text unnecessary. We can assume the image's viewer has some knowledge of the image's context. Also, the image doesn't look fuzzy on either my desktop computer or my mobile phone; are you sure it's not just your monitor?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK for illustrating the Tooth and Tail article. It's meaningless out of that context, and would only puzzle most Main Page readers. The background of the image is done in an ethereal style that appears blotchy at full res. Not suitable for featuring on the Main Page. Sca (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: As opposed to this stuttering mess, this diagram that has no information that makes sense to me, this yellow-green cell, and many of these (especially this, where you can see blurriness on the white lines)? Let's be consistent with what we think doesn't appeal to the general public, especially "when 60% Americans play video games daily". Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Sca (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How come you're not responding to points that clearly invalidate your argument? JOE BRO 64 01:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further the affiant sayeth naught. Sca (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Most of the people reading your comment won't understand what you're trying to say. 344917661X (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@344917661X: There's no point trying to continue the conversation. They're quite adamant on opposing (despite it being not at all related to the criteria). We've still got four days to see whether other people wish to add their supports/opposes (currently 4-2, and FP is entirely based on numbers, so one more support and no more opposition allows it to pass at ~71%). Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right that there is no point in trying to continue the conversation. Sca has successfully derailed this discussion and the discussion over at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nintendo Switch Portable as well. 344917661X (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree with the reasoning provided by Martin IIIa. I also like to clarify that currently Featured picture criteria mentions nothing about a potential Feature Picture's use on the Main Page and the Main Page should not be taken into account when taking this picture into consideration. This picture clearly exceeds criteria #5 which states Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article while further clarifying A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. Based on the fact this image passes all criteria of being a featured picture plus where it adds encyclopedic value to its parent article Tooth and Tail should be enough to promote this image alone based on the (and I emphasize) current criteria. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tooth and Tail - Desert screenshot.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch in Handheld Mode

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2018 at 02:28:25 (UTC)

Reason: A high quality image made by one of the best photographers on Wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears: Nintendo Switch, Handheld game console, History of video games, List of handheld game consoles, Nintendo video game consoles, Satoru Iwata, Rocket League, Tegra
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Electronics
Creator: Evan-Amos

Support as nominator – 344917661X (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – To reiterate from previous discussions, the device is of no intrinsic visual interest. It may be OK for illustrating the Nintendo Switch article, but is of zero interest to most Main Page readers. Sca (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before. So let me reiterate my point again, it does not matter if the image is not of interest to most main page readers. Featured pictures are determined by the quality of the image and wether or not it passes the Featured picture criteria and the featured picture criteria does not say that an image has to be of interest to most main page readers in order to be promoted to featured picture status. As Maplestrip pointed out in the previous discussion, "The majority of people aren't interested in specific bird species. The majority of people aren't interested in map projections. As per 344917661X, popularity is fairly irrelevant, and I feel that this specific discussion went a bit off-the-rails." Not to mention the fact that today's featured article is about an obscure mouse species that most of the general public doesn't know about. 344917661X (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to describe what the "main page reader" wants to see? At no point has anyone ever had a criteria on what type of industry a Featured Picture could come from. Do you have an issues with video games, or any other project on wikipedia? Probably not best to simply comment on those types of entries. I can't see how it has no "intrinsic visual interest"; as there have been many featured pictures of a subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on derailing the entire discussion into a heated debate over wether this picture passes the featured picture criteria Sca. Your comments on this discussion are also really disrespectful and the only reason you seem to be opposing the nomination at this point is per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 344917661X (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ – I always have a hard time judging images by Wikipedia's featured picture guidelines (which is why I don't involve myself with it very often), but I feel like most Evan Amos pictures meet the criteria. Per Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, the image certainly meets 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Only criterium 3 is difficult, but that's because it's subjective. The image shows every detail of the device visible from this angle, and I can't think of a better way to illustrate the Switch in portable mode. Perhaps it could have been slightly more angled to show the buttons and ports on the top? I do think Amos has more visually compelling works, but this photograph meets all the requirements and there's no limit on how many FPs a single photographer can have, right? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is limit on how many FPs a single photographer can have. 344917661X (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same with FAs: the more the merrier. The only limit is how many nominations you can have open concurrently with before reviewers lose interest, which is about four (it's not prescribed, use your judgement). MER-C 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am switching to oppose, because I do not believe the image is adequately compelling or informative. The photograph gives a poor view of the buttons and ports on the top of the console, and does not feel "dynamic" because it was shot almost head-on. An image like this one would serve Wikipedia much better, as it is both more informative (displaying a main feature of the device) and more visually compelling. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image you provided as a "better" example doesn't even show the headphone jack or the game card or the other stuff on the top of the Switch console nearly as well as the photograph currently being nominated. The fact that people are opposing this nomination per their own opinions, which violates WP:IDONTLIKEIT and getting away with it is just absurd. 344917661X (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nominated pictures is showing these features fairly poorly, to the point where they might as well not be visible at all. It is indeed difficult to judge criterium 3; it is fairly subjective. The image could be more informative and dynamic, and I do not believe it is among Amos' best work. My comments here should be detailed enough to not fall under the "Arguments to avoid" guideline. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your comment falls under the arguments to avoid guideline. Also, I actually agree with you and have had a change of heart thanks to your comment, the image should be more dynamic and should have one of the Joy-Con detached to show off the Switch's main feature. Your oppose vote is the only valid one in this cesspool of arguments. If you want Amos to improve the image, feel free to ask him on his talk page to retake the photo and provide the arguments you made here as to why he should retake it. Cheers! P.S. Do you think the other Nintendo Switch image Amos took deserves to remain a featured picture or not? 344917661X (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other Switch image deserves it. It has some of the same issues as the photograph we're currently discussing (in that it doesn't show that you can take the controller apart or remove the screen from the docking station, but it looks much more interesting, having a kind of "dynamic duo" effect. I do think you are being overly critical of the "oppose" !votes in this thread, by the way. Saying people are creating a "cesspool of arguments" is a bit mean. Wikipedians aren't art critics, and I don't think it is too big of an issue that we have difficulty describing why we don't find the image visually appealing or interesting. Moreover, it's definitely an edgecase because the picture is technically so great. I honestly don't care very much either way if it becomes Featured. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't think of another sentence to describe the discussion in this page other than a "cesspool of arguments" and I'm sorry if I sounded rude. The discussions on this thread have gone so off the rails that I have decided not to reply to any more comments on this discussion starting now. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so on my talk page so we can chat alone. P.S. I agree that the previous image deserves to be a featured picture per your comment above. 344917661X (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2018

Support. Great picture and will interest the main page audience. JOE BRO 64 01:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not sure how any aspect of the main page will survive if we continue to act so elitist and shoot down everything we dislike. Anarchyte (talk | work) 04:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I commnented on the previous nom, this image on its own does not do justice to the article. To try to have a second FP is not appropriate in my mind. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is extremely vague and it seems as if the only reason why people are opposing this nomination is due to elitism. 344917661X (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elitism? Don't be rude. The Nintendo Switch article is illustrated by a logo and two photos. One is already a FP. I don't agree with more than one FP for the same subject. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm sorry if I did act rude. Secondly, there is no limit on how many pictures in a single article can be promoted to featured article status, as long as the images are of good quality. The more pictures promoted to featured picture status, the better Wikipedia gets. 344917661X (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I think about it, I don't think you are an elitist since you just don't want too many pictures in the same article to be promoted to featured picture status. Sca on the other hand, is a different story. 344917661X (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above. --Janke | Talk 11:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
→ Plus, it fails to "illustrate the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" (criterion 3). – Sca (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're opposing per the featured picture criteria? Why didn't you simply say it fails criteria 3 in your previous oppose votes? Also, criteria 3 is more subjective and wether a picture passes criteria 3 depends on a person's opinion, but then again, you could argue the same point for every picture that you personally don't think illustrates the subject in a compelling way. You thinking it fails criteria 3 seems to be a reflection of your anti-video game stance. 344917661X (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Meets all Featured Pictures criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Sca (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It is a high-quality image that would be helpful to someone interested in better understanding the console. I do understand the concern though about having two featured pictures on the same subject (i.e. the Nintendo Switch), though I think that the nominated image shows off a different aspect of the system (i.e. the portable version/mode). For that reason, I think it has encyclopedic value (just my opinion though). I am a little confused by the current discussion about the front page though, as that is not a part of the featured picture criteria. Maybe, the criteria needs to be updated to cover this too? Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A featured picture candidate should be judged against the featured picture criteria and only the featured picture criteria. The potential use on the Main Page is irrelevant and the criteria doesn't place a limitation on how many FP an article can have. This type of limitation would also be hard to enforce as well if the community ever decided on such limitation. The image passes criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 with flying colors while criteria 3 and 5 can be subjective to the reviewer. For criteria 3 it clearly states A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. This is a case of a highly informative image. For criteria 5 it states A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. In this case for the articles Nintendo Switch , Satoru Iwata, Rocket League & Tegra it does enhance the EV of those articles in the context in which it is used. For the others two are essentially lists (List of handheld game consoles, Handheld game console) while History of video games has an overload of images in general. For Nintendo video game consoles that article would probably best served by moving Nintendo Switch into its own section titled "Hybrid" and chose either the the docked image or this image for the section.
TL;DR When voting base the image off of the featured picture criteria and not the main page or any other criteria not mentioned in WP:FP?. This image passes criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 without question. It passed criteria 3 as a highly informative image of its primary article while passing criteria 5 by enhancing the encyclopedic value to its primary article and three other articles. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the fact that images should only be judged against featured picture criteria and not people's own tastes. Most Evan-Amos pictures pass the featured picture criteria with ease, which is why I nominated this image. I also agree with the fact that wether or not the image gets featured on the main page is irrelevant when it comes to featured picture candidate discussions. There are probably a lot of featured pictures that haven't been featured on the main page yet, because wether or not they should and when they should has not been decided yet. Lastly, I agree with the fact that there should be no limitation on how many pictures can be promoted to featured picture status. As long as there are quality images on Wikimedia, we will continue to promote pictures to featured picture status. I feel as if discussions above went a bit off the rails. 344917661X (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with me. Sca (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is something we can agree on I agree with me too however I still disagree with you. Just because the picture is a photograph of the console in handheld mode it is one of the best examples of the subject the encyclopedia has to offer. Second just because the image isn't "spectacular" or "impressive" it adds a lot of encyclopedic value to the subject which is given priority. Third it meets criteria 3 because the photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail in accordance with WP:FP?.
If you want the interest of Main Page readers to be added as criteria 9 then I suggest you stop bringing it up on every video game related image and take this discussion to the FPC talk page and see what the community thinks of this. Everytime you bring this up on video game related images which is 3 now it gives me the vibe your only opposing these images for elitist, trivial and you don't like it. If you don't like video games and can't provide constructive, objective and unbiased criticism then don't comment on those images all it does is wastes time and discourages people from wanting to do anything related to featured pictures, good articles, featured articles, etc.
I have no interest in learning the difference between the different species of butterflies but I didn't go to Gold rim swallowtail and Silver-spotted skipper and oppose them on the grounds I think those images would be "of zero interest to most Main Page readers." I reviewed those images objectively and unbiased based on the featured picture criteria and found with 100% I could give my support to them because the pass the criteria with (no pun intended) flying colors. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 06:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - does not illustrate the subject in a compelling way. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: If you don't mind me asking how doesn't this image illustrate the subject in a compelling way? This photograph has appropriate lighting and maximizes the visible detail of the unit. Its very clear and informative about what the unit looks like in handheld mode and it is highly informative of the subject. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo, although technically perfect, is generic and forgettable. It looks like it could have come out of a Sears Catalog. The lighting is flat and perfectly even; the background is non-existent; and the only thing that is compositionally interesting is that the unit is slightly tilted. I know that this is exactly the normal style for video game console illustrations, but I don't think that style is compelling. Illustrative, yes. Compelling, no. It's a great illustration, but I don't think it's a featured picture, IMO. FWIW, I don't think the other Nintendo Switch photo should have been featured either. Kaldari (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Highly informative image. --Mika1h (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon diagram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2018 at 11:22:27 (UTC)

**Original** – Side elevation of a typical 19th-century cannon

Reason: Quality diagram, high EV, featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Cannon, Touch hole
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Creator: KDS444

Support as nominator – MER-C 11:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The gunpowder appears as grey spots on the red when I open the SVG, but they don't seem to render in the preview, so the gunpowder appears rather as if it's a red liquid. Can that be resolved? TSP (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well-established fact that MediaWiki's SVG rasterizer is buggy, and the WMF don't really want to do anything about it. Firefox butchers this SVG terribly. It's best if you review this image in GIMP, Inkscape or any competent image editing program. MER-C 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's technically Mediawiki's fault, I'm a little loath to suggest we promote as a Wikipedia Featured Picture something that cannot actually be correctly viewed on Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to produce something that looked more like gunpowder using basic SVG features - I'm not sure that "red cloud with grey splotches" is that great a representation of gunpowder anyway. (I'm imagining it's meant to represent the powder being ignited, but nothing else about the picture suggests the cannon is in the process of being fired - there's no representation of powder or fire in the vent or vent field, or of a match being applied, or of any movement to the wadding or ball.) TSP (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the labels and text look disorganized (particularly when viewed at full size). We had a similar nom: [3] and it was resolved [4], leaning to oppose as is. Bammesk (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you viewing this in Firefox? I rasterized the image in GIMP and it looked fine. MER-C 19:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, in Chrome. Sidenote: same problem viewing it in GIMP. Bammesk (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great diagram. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very informative, but needs fixes per below. (Works om my Firefox v. 48.0.2 OS X). --Janke | Talk 07:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has great potential, but sloppy labels/text ruin it. Trunnion should be singular. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not sure the plural and singular for several labels is correct... Mattximus (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp and Mattximus. --The NMI User (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment. Probably could be featured, but too many small things wrong at the minute. Gunpowder representation is odd and doesn't work on Mediawiki; doesn't seem to be an explanation of why only the vent field is marked in red; vent and base ring labels almost collide unnecessarily; "Bottom of the bore" label not very near the bottom of the bore; I can't see any rimbases even though they are labelled. I'm also a bit concerned that the long section it's associated with in the article is pretty much unsourced, and seems oddly specific to a very particular design of cannon. TSP (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gold rim swallowtail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2018 at 11:14:45 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Battus polydamas
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 12:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – That's a big-butt-butterfly! ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one's gonna fly. Sca (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gold rim swallowtail (Battus polydamas jamaicensis) underside worn 2.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silver spotted skipper

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2018 at 11:18:39 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Hesperia comma
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 12:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll skip this one because of the rather messy composition (criteria 3.1 & 3.2). --Janke | Talk 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssinian black-and-white colobus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2018 at 07:27:35 (UTC)

Reason: High quality expressive image of an Ethiopian subspecies. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Abyssinian black-and-white colobus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a renomination of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abyssinian black-and-white colobus which didn't meet quorum. Support per the previous nomination. MER-C 12:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting anthropoid face. Sca (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support GMG ^talk 21:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Abyssinian black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza guereza) male head.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closeup of the center of a stone wheel - Konark Sun Temple, Orissa, India

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2018 at 14:18:21 (UTC)

Reason: A high resolution closeup image of the center of the wheel
Articles in which this image appears: Konark Sun Temple
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator: Subhrajyoti

Support as nominator – Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this has only been placed in the article today, and is only in a gallery, so fails the "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article" criterion. I'm also not sure it's the best for encyclopedic value, as only a small part of the carving is in focus. TSP (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not FP composition - the eight carvings on the spokes are cut off. MER-C 16:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – A more visually accessible photo is already in the target article. Sca (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

←

Comment - Yes, but in that photo the center motif of the wheel has been got eroded/erased over time. This photograph specifically focuses on the center motif of another wheel in the same sun temple complex where the stone motif is still visible/reasonably intact-Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the temple has "24 elaborately carved stone wheels," so these are two different ones. Nevertheless, I concur with MER-C that the nominated pic. is too close up – a wider field would aid viewer recognition of a wheel form. Sca (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World War I casualties

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2018 at 16:34:34 (UTC)

Reason: Lead image for World War I casualties, featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: World War I casualties, British Army during World War I, Ernest Brooks (photographer)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I
Creator: Ernest Brooks (photographer)

Support as nominator – MER-C 16:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria della Vittoria in Rome - Interior

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2018 at 19:05:01 (UTC)

Reason: One of most beautiful church in Rome
Articles in which this image appears: Santa Maria della Vittoria, Rome
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: LivioAndronico

Withdrawn – LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
question Colin Cart what is the situation with this user please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

answer you should ask an administrator, not to them .... and find you a hobby and not stalker me,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator hasn't violated our sockpuppetry policy yet (which forbids vote stacking, among other things), but the socks are blocked. See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive993#Sockpuppets_of_User:Livioandronico2013. Livioandronico2013 should consider themselves to be restricted to one account only. MER-C 20:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however Σπάρτακος was only a my my colleague from Bristol ..... but it does not matter so much. Greetings. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know none of the details, but this user is on on list of Commons users indefinitely blocked in December 2017 Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately Charlesjsharp you said something that everyone know. MER-C is an administrator and he also replied. thank you.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mekong River

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2018 at 05:03:22 (UTC)

Reason: This seems to be the best photo that we have of the Mekong. It is the lead image of the Mekong article and used on five mainspace pages.
Articles in which this image appears: Mekong, Laos, List of Ramsar wetlands of Thailand, River pirate, Jullien's golden carp
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places
Creator: Allie Caulfield, cropped by Pine

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 05:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's risky cropping someone else's image. I would object if anyone cropped mine. Does the photographer agree? Too much cropped I think. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with Charles about too much cropped, given the river is the primary subject. Bammesk (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Charles, but there's certainly a tilt -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triton

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2018 at 07:06:38 (UTC)

Reason: Good EV, excellent photo, high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: Triton (moon), Neptune, Voyager 2, etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA, uploaded by Jbarta

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been nominated twice before: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Triton Mosaic, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Triton (moon). I understand that part of the fuzziness comes from differing resolutions because it's a flyby and resolution varies with distance from the object. However, there's some weird JPEG(?) artifacts even on the high resolution parts, and that's enough for an Oppose. MER-C 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose images havn't been merged properly Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per above, also lots of black pixels (dead pixels) on the planet near the top boundary (top left). Bad software manipulation! Bammesk (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Nebula

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2018 at 07:06:39 (UTC)

Reason: Higher resolution, good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Eagle Nebula, etc.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: ESO

Support as nominator – The NMI User (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a slightly too small field of view, though I think it will be a bit difficult picking up the extended emission without saturating/blowing out the central region. Reserving judgement for now. MER-C 17:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image has lots of noise in some areas, isn't it excessive?! Bammesk (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Astronomical images are generally noisier than photographs. This is not because of the equipment - any emission slightly below the detection threshold appears as noise. MER-C 08:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 14:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naqsh-e Rustam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2018 at 18:13:49 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution, detailed, featured on Commons, high EV shot of a historical site with its own article. Probably what the reviewers at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Naqsh-e Rustam had in mind.
Articles in which this image appears: Naqsh-e Rustam, Iranian architecture, Achaemenid architecture, Rostami, List of necropoleis
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Diego Delso

Support as nominator – MER-C 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is an adequate size for a panorama! --Janke | Talk 08:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Basile Morin (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Naghsh-e rostam, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 20-24 PAN.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added image to Places/Panorama instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black-chested snake-eagle

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2018 at 20:33:51 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Black-chested snake-eagle
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 08:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pteronura brasiliensis 05:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Black-chested snake-eagle (Circaetus pectoralis).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock hyrax

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2018 at 15:23:43 (UTC)

Reason: High quality large image. FP on Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Rock hyrax
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Charlesjsharp

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very good detail in this nice shot of a cute critter. Sca (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs a fifth. --Janke | Talk 14:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cute! The NMI User (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aoba47 (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady at the Tea Table

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2018 at 20:32:00 (UTC)

Reason: The image in question is a painting by a well-known artist, has an interesting history behind it, and has an article concerning it. It is in the public domain courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and is of high resolution.
Articles in which this image appears: Lady at the Tea Table, Mary Cassatt
FP category for this image: Artwork
Creator: Pharos

Support as nominator – SamHolt6 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added to nomination list, 10 days stars from now. MER-C 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Need to to something about the black surround. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support conditionally on cropping out the black portion...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I agree this needs a crop. MER-C 14:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not a crop as that would remove some of the photo. Needs a re-shoot or careful edit. Conditional support is not as far as I can see, a valid vote on FP The Herald (Benison) MER-C.Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am almost Ok with the black portion, but I prefer a file conversion to PNG and then replacing the black portion with transparency. Agree with Charles about not cropping the borders of the canvas, I also oppose cloning to change the border of the canvas. Bammesk (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not a crop but a slight perspective adjustment is absolutely necessary. No problem on a black background, but on a white one it's really ugly, then not FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albizia saman (rain tree) in the Mekong

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2018 at 14:23:16 (UTC)

Reason: Lead image for the most relevant article, and already featured on Commons
Articles in which this image appears: Albizia saman, Si Phan Don
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
Creator: Basile Morin

Support as nominator – Pine^✉ 14:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only a tree....and not sharp especially on the left --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proved that Livioandronico2013, Σπάρτακος and Architas are the same person. They have all been banned on Commons because of revenge votes and vandalism. Now they pretend to be colleagues but they're obviously not. Another proof that Livioandronico2013 and Architas (official sockpuppet of Σπάρτακος) are the same is this diff, where the (banned) author signs Livioandronico2013 while the vote comes from Architas -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to grow, and accept the votes against .... If I do not like it does not mean that it is a vendetta .... why should I take revenge? not even who you are! Then objectively what? Σπάρτακος is just a colleague of mine, I have not denied all accounts only One ... then little I care it was a matter of conscience. You're calmer, thanks.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – EV, the main subject (the tree) is sharp, I am Ok with a bit of un-sharp background. Bammesk (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pine, for the nomination. Previous success on Commons -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and execution. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Illustrates the subject very well, contrary to the plethora of photos in the gallery, most of them of the same tree - ~~someone ought to do~~ I did some pruning in that gallery! ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The NMI User (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't typically take part in FPC discussions, but this is a wonderful picture and clearly meets the criteria. Definitely think this would be a great featured picture.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Flooded Albizia Saman (rain tree) in the Mekong.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Greeley

Reason: A historical photograph of Horace Greeley, the Liberal Republican/Democratic nominee in the 1872 U.S. presidential election. A bot originally uploaded this in 2011 but it wasn't used anywhere until now. In addition, this is the lead image for Greeley's page. The previous lead image wasn't a photograph for almost a decade.
Articles in which this image appears: Horace Greeley, Horace Greeley presidential campaign, 1872
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Possibly Mathew Brady. The NARA didn't say who created this.

Support as nominator – Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The background is slightly odd and this doesn't seem to be an outstanding photograph. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (nomination withdrawn) MER-C 16:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]