Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/February-2014

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
2025:	January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Catopsilia pomona

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 11:51:28 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality. Commons FP.
Articles in which this image appears: Catopsilia pomona
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Jkadavoor

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --///EuroCarGT 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose annoying lighting.--Alborzagros (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support.--Theparties (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; sorry, this one's not quite there for me. The article's very much over-illustrated, and while it's a great picture, I don't feel that it stands out above the others in EV terms. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Rafael Urdaneta Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 12:06:03 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality. Commons FP.
Articles in which this image appears: General Rafael Urdaneta Bridge, Lake Maracaibo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Wilfredor

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose blur and not much resolution. Alborzagros (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quality below the bar for architectural photography. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Salmond

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 04:40:08 (UTC)

Reason: High quality photo and good EV. Scotland's holding an independence referendum this September and Salmond has been one the main figures of Scottish nationalism in the past 25 years. If Scots vote for independence, his significance will rise even more in the history of the British Isles.
Articles in which this image appears: Alex Salmond
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Scottish Government

Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 04:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose low quality--Alborzagros (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose What is this about?--Theparties (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is what about? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This? --Theparties (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong with it? You might wanna elaborate on that. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what exactly is happening here and why this is important.--Theparties (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly explained what is happening. Please take your time to read the caption. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your caption is hardly a neutral and factual explanation of the picture... J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — ZZZzzzz. Sca (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great composition, but the lighting isn't ideal. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Bleaching

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 06:34:40 (UTC)

A photograph illustrating the results of anal bleaching, one of the most trendy and curious cosmetic procedures.

Reason: An exceptional image that vividly illustrates subject matter. Image is professional quality, high resolution, allowing very detailed inspection. Model is pristine. Photo composition and lighting are superb. Compares very favorably to other anogenital photos on wikipedia.
Articles in which this image appears: Anal_bleaching
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Nordela

Support as nominator --Greg Comlish (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Great image, great asshole, no to front-page exposure. Call me a prude. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If this can be featured without being frontpaged, I withdraw my objection. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:NOTCENSORED. This is not obscene in the legal sense, it is not even particularly erotic, although of course tastes vary. And it is a striking and excellent image of its kind. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is an extract from File:Show Butt.jpg (part of a series copied from Flickr) and there is no verification that anal bleaching has occurred—the image has been tagged since October 2013 with "There is no evidence or source whatsoever that this anus has actually been bleached, rather than being naturally light. The creator of this derivate [is] not the author of the original image". The image metadata confirms that photo editing software has been used, however the encyclopedic value of the image relies on it being verifiably illustrative for the article in which it is used. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The model in the image is known to be 'Jenni Blaze' a porn star from southern California where anal bleaching is the overwhelming industry standard. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banaue Rice Terraces, Philippines

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:14 (UTC)

Reason: One of only a few architectural structures in the islands from before the Spanish era to survive until present.
Articles in which this image appears: Banaue Rice Terraces, Banaue, Ifugao
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Cccefalon

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Clipped highlights in the sky. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binondo dragon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:18 (UTC)

Reason: This image shows the culture in Binondo, Manila's Chinatown
Articles in which this image appears: Binondo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Cccefalon

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Something about the composition here is just very pedestrian, the red part is just so unattractive. pschemp | talk 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid I'm not seeing any EV here. Visually interesting, though. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handmade brooms

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:21 (UTC)

Reason: Traditional handmade brooms showing culture of the Ifugao
Articles in which this image appears: Broom, handicraft
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Cccefalon

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both high quality and educational as well. — Cirt (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~. Very Commons-friendly, but I don't really think that this is overflowing with EV. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Instant change of heart. It's a great photo, so I'll stay neutral. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lighting is a bit uneven, but I think that just make the photograph more attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 19:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support like it. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Banaue Philippines Handmade-brooms-01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ifugao Tribesman

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:35:25 (UTC)

Reason: A man wears traditional Igorot clothing
Articles in which this image appears: Igorot people, Cordillera Administrative Region, Igorot society
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress
Creator: Cccefalon

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Decent enough quality, with high cultural value. MatGTAM (talk) 5:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Weak support - Not keen on the shadows, though quality overall is quite nice — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree there is strong cultural value here. — Cirt (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with cirt Godhulii 1985 (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like, between the terraces in the background, the traditional dress, and even the posture of the subject, this has high EV. Good work, Cccefalon! --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- HectorMoffet, if that is a !vote please be explicit so that nobody miscounts when closing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support, just remember I'm new and still getting the hang of things at FPC --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Banaue Philippines Ifugao-Tribesman-01.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Saroyan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 17:44:36 (UTC)

Reason: Relatively high quality for a 1940 photo.
Articles in which this image appears: William Saroyan, Armenian American
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Al Aumuller, World-Telegram staff photographer

Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of visible scratches and the composition and pose is rather awkward and artificial - is he straddling the back of a lounge chair or something? Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Verne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 17:54:02 (UTC)

Reason: An old photograph of a great Frenchman by Nadar nicely restored by users mentioned below.
Articles in which this image appears: Jules Verne
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Nadar (retouched by Jdcollins13, Centpacrr and Quibik)

Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 17:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support The topic is nice but the image is a bit too dark.--Theparties (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, interesting wistful look of times gone by. — Cirt (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, love it. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid image, and though the scan is not of as high resolution as our other Nadar pictures, I think this is certainly up to par. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits Jules Verne (restoration).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidatsa Dog Dancer

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 22:41:19 (UTC)

Reason: High historic and cultural value. The image shows a Hidatsa Indian man dancing the "Dog Dance" while dressed in traditional dancing regalia. The image refers to the man as Minnetaree, a Mandan name commonly used when referring to Hidatsa people.
Articles in which this image appears: Hidatsa people, Karl Bodmer
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional
Creator: Karl Bodmer

Support as nominator --MatGTAM (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Interesting. Brandmeister^talk 11:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit, assuming the white is its natural color. I'm somewhat surprised that the LoC digitization may not be faithful, but perhaps the paper just faded away or otherwise aged in such manner. Brandmeister^talk 09:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a version with a colour bar that shows it's definitely white paper. That version is otherwise a much worse version, but is enough to check. The LoC is actually really bad about colour. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Strong degree of educational value. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support culturally important. Support edit.--Theparties (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While this image deserves promotion in the end, it's fairly obvious something weird is going on with the paper - pink and grey are not natural colours for it; about 99% of lithographs were printed on white paper, and the fraction printed on two-tone paper is insignificant. I'll do an edit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, it's looking good, just removing some reflections on the dark areas. (Specifically, the red cloth in the lower right of the figure - it has a LOT of white reflection spots, that I'm removing at 800% zoom. But that's the only bit of restoration left.) I could use someone with Photoshop proper to do some final vignetting fixes - Photoshop makes those a lot easier - but the cleanup's almost done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit prepared, support Edit Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit - I'm fairly sure we haven't gone too far astray in the restoration, and since the last such sketch was edited before promotion I think we should remain consistent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And I did check it against a copy that had a colour bar. It's reasonably similar to what I got from the colour bar. Not exact, but then, the copy with the colour bar is really bad, and there's a tendency for that to lead to reduced colour fidelity, even with a bar. It's easier with a better scan, of course. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Looks great to me, the colours are much brighter and the white background looks much better and authentic to the original. Thanks. MatGTAM (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, I agree it looks much better. Nice work! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit - great restoration work by Adam and Crisco -- Godot13 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Moenitarri warrior in the costume of the dog danse 0056v.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grimsel Pass

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 23:20:22 (UTC)

Reason: a high resolution image incl. a nice view of this area
Articles in which this image appears: Grimsel Pass
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: Alchemist-hp

Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Godot13 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support — Suggest tighter crop from right to bring more detail into focus. Sca (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The right side is a part from the Grimsel pass too! It shows the right mountain wall. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, so.... Sca (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Crop is fine to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite striking. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stunning- the only thing that strikes me is that there isn't actually much road on show! J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Blick auf den Grimselsee und den Raeterichsbodensee 0981.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel L. Quezon 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 23:24:37 (UTC)

Reason: A high quality image of Manuel L. Quezon, second president of the Philippines. The last nomination fell one support short, but I'm fairly certain that this image is up to snuff.
Articles in which this image appears: Manuel L. Quezon, List of Presidents of the Philippines, Commonwealth of the Philippines, Quezon City
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Office of War Information; restored by Chris Woodrich

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support missed it the first time.--Godot13 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this should have made it.--Theparties (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment last time Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as before. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality image of a deceased politician. Educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --///EuroCarGT 00:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Manuel L. Quezon (November 1942).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Coward

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 08:57:22 (UTC)

Reason: High quality picture of a notable playwright (with a featured article at that!) by a notable photographer, at resolution big enough to make a poster out of. As this was a posed shot, I'm fairly certain the flower and glass of (?) are deliberate. Since they just block the sleeve, it's not a big deal in my opinion.
Articles in which this image appears: Noël Coward, Allan Warren, Poets' Corner, Binkie Beaumont
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Allan Warren (User:Allan warren)

~~Support as nominator~~ -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Glad to see Allan uploading at higher-res, and without the compression as he used to. (Glad to see him uploading at all, of course--his work is invaluable.) Chick Bowen 04:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support EV and good quality.--Alborzagros (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV and good quality. --Admr Boltz 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I really like this one. It captures something about Noël Coward. Great work, Allan warren! --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Alborzagros, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent stuff. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might question the colour balance, but it's not atypical of older photographs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose - please do not promote this until this can be discussed. The original image's colours are these: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/08/20110430101425!Noel_Coward_Allan_warren.jpg They were edited, without any obvious reason, at the same time the higher-resolution copy was uploaded. That means that the strange blue-cast skin tones aren't due to fading of 70s filmstock, but are user error caused by the darkest part of the image being on a blue jacket. It's an easy mistake to have happen if you trust autolevels. It's also been cropped a little bit, but I don't mind that. That said, I think that a fix is possible, see Edit 1. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm happy to support the edit Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with this analysis by Adam Cuerden, above. I'd Support the edited version. — Cirt (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit - Good catch, edit looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit - Ya! Agree with Adam - Bellus Delphina ^talk 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. --Admr Boltz 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Noel Coward Allan warren edit 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dome of the Rock

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 00:59:10 (UTC)

Reason: High EV, High quality.
Articles in which this image appears: Dome of the Rock (on 10+ other wikipedias)
FP category for this image: Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Godot13

Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly important cultural icon.--Theparties (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pretty amazing photo, however the little adjacent structure on the right is cut off. ///EuroCarGT 01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is unfortunate. This was as far back as I could go to avoid a large tour group (100+) behind me.-Godot13 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still pretty nice, I'll support. ///EuroCarGT 02:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice. Don't mind the adjacent structure being cut off. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Palestine-2013(2)-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock (SE exposure).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Panorama

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 02:10:10 (UTC)

Original – A wide panorama of the Grand Canyon.

Reason: A high resolution (12,082 × 3,029) panoramic shot of the Grand Canyon. The colours are bright, vivid and highly detailed.
Articles in which this image appears: Grand Canyon
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama
Creator: commons:User:Lbolsius

Support as nominator --///EuroCarGT 02:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a most striking image. — Cirt (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tasman Lake tour boat

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 08:50:54 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality
Articles in which this image appears: Tasman Lake
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Avenue

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This one's got the wow factor right here. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really nice Bellus Delphina ^talk 10:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it! Alborzagros (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tour boat among the icebergs on Tasman Lake.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Mae Burroughs

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 09:08:56 (UTC)

Reason: Iconic image, that was to become a symbol of the Great Depression. One of the most famous photos by one of the most notable social photographers, Walker Evans. Displayed at the permanent collection of Cleveland Museum of Art. The scan is of good resolution and quality.
Articles in which this image appears: Walker Evans, Cleveland Museum of Art, Farm Security Administration, Social realism, 1930s
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Walker Evans (uploaded by MarkSweep)

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — An iconic Walker Evans pic. Sca (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High resolution, good quality, and surprisingly few (if any) obvious dust spots or hairs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Iconic image. Educational. — Cirt (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin°^Talk 12:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Allie Mae Burroughs print.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notre-Dame Cathedral Basilica, Ottawa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 13:37:16 (UTC)

Reason: HQ picture.
Articles in which this image appears: Notre-Dame Cathedral Basilica, Ottawa
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Creator: Sergiu.dumitriu

Support as nominator --Jaqeli (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Image is difficult for the viewer to 'enter' due to lack of light/dark contrast. Also appears to be slightly crooked. Sca (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose left side tilted, top has a white stripe and the bottom crop feels somewhat random. --ELEKHH^T 04:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the original version for consideration. Brandmeister^talk 08:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This photo (the lower one) shows a very complex mid 19th-century Neo-Gothic decorative scheme in immense detail. It is not easy to find a photo of an interior as complex as this one, in which all the intricacies of the architectonic carvings can be seen, and the stained glass windows are actually sharp!!. In terms of describing the architecture/ interior design of the period, this photo has real encyclopedic value, despite the fact that (as Sca has pointed out) it has shortcomings as a piece of "art photography". Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NROL-39

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 10:11:12 (UTC)

Reason: Unique image. Historic/Notable (extensive discussion of image in RSes). It "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". It's a highly-evocative and extremely effective work of art.
Articles in which this image appears: National Reconnaissance Office, NROL-39, List of NRO Launches
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others or perhaps Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Drawings
Creator: National Reconnaissance Office, US Government

Support as nominator. As Jon Stewart said: "Last week, the National Reconnaissance Office launched this spy satellite into orbit; And the logo they chose for their spy rocket-- this is real-- a giant octopus sucking the face off North America". It's an genuinely exquisite piece of propaganda art. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting the original The .svg doesn't seem to be 1:1 with the original Godhulii 1985 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - This is cool. That the patch has had critical commentary about it just sweetens the deal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with rationale by Crisco 1492, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (original) good EV, great critical commentary. --Admr Boltz 18:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Crisco 1492. This is a really amusing picture, yet creepy at the same time. One can only wonder how such a strange choice made it through. At least the government spooks have a sense of humor. Sn1pe! ^{(talk)(edits)} 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm not sure which image should be featured. Both the original and vector are amazing in their own way. The original is notable (see HectorMoffet's comments above), while the vector is a fine reproduction of said original and is an example of epic vector art. (Although this probably isn't really relevant) Sn1pe! ^{(talk)(edits)} 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support original, oppose vector Only one of these was actually used: Vectorization adds additional artistic decisions that aren't necessarily in the original artistic design. The colours are different, there's some realizations, and so on. I've seen this realized in paint or print a few times - by official sources - and it just doesn't look like the vector. Amongst other things: The font for "NROL-39" is obviously different; the latitude lines are missing on the globe, the gradient shading seems to be different - notably, the highlight ont he rightmost leg is different from any other version, and the octopus' shading seems a bit more slapdash than it is on other versions. The arm detail matches neither the patch nor any JPEG version; Some shapes have changed - for example, the dark triangle-like shapes moving towards the tentacle from the eye are three in number on the patch, and two on the vector, etc. Vectors are great when there isn't an official realization - coats of arms, etc - but aren't for everything. That said, if we could get a high-res JPEG to vectorise - a FOIA request should get that, if nothing else - I think this could all be fixed, but given the choice between a vector from a low-resolution JPEG, or a patch, I'll take the patch. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nrol-39.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moorman photograph of JFK assassination

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 18:51:50 (UTC)

Reason: This polaroid photograph by Mary Moorman is not of the best technical quality, but its historical value is immense and was achieved though astonishing luck (albeit unfortunate in context).
Articles in which this image appears: Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Mary Moorman, Badge Man
FP category for this image: History/American history
Creator: Mary Moorman

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry! At full resolution I can barely see what the image is about. --Jakob (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can make out what's happening if you look at JFK at the motorcade. There are no other photographs of the event like this one. JJARichardson (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashmont–Mattapan Line PCC streetcar

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 21:25:21 (UTC)

Reason: High quality image of an iconic streetcar as it is used today
Articles in which this image appears: Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator: Derek Yu on Flickr

Support as nominator --wctaiwan (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Rather nice, though the clipped highlights spoil it for me a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good EV, good shot. Apparently the conductor didn't want to be photographed :p --Admr Boltz 18:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roaring Creek in wintertime

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 22:41:01 (UTC)

Reason: I think this is of at least a decent technical standard. It is 3264 by 1840 pixels, so no size issues. Like I said, it is certainly a decent image and streams are underrepresented among FPs. It is under a CC-BY-SA license. This image adds encyclopedic value to Roaring Creek (Pennsylvania), where it is currently the only image. It wasn't created for the purpose of supporting original research. It has an accurate name, description and location data. Finally, the image has not been altered from its original form. All in all, I think it's a great image and it would be great if it became featured.
Articles in which this image appears: Roaring Creek (Pennsylvania)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: Jakec (King jakob c 2 on Commons)

Support as nominator ----Jakob (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks tilted, and the tops of the trees are cut off, making this picture seem more busy than it has to be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: I have corrected the tilt, I think. --Jakob (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The trees being cut off really takes away from the image, I also wonder if there is a better/more telling place along the stream to take a photo, where you can see more than just a little portion of it. Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would be more encylopedic had it not been covered in ice. Mundane composition. - hahnch e n 00:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahnchen, Mattximus, and Crisco 1492: Maybe I should try for quality image on Commons instead? --Jakob (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try taking more pictures instead of shopping for awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Monastery, Regensburg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 04:53:03 (UTC)

Reason: High EV providing good overview of the space, excellent level of detail and interesting lighting,
Articles in which this image appears: Scots Monastery, Regensburg
FP category for this image: Interiors
Creator: Richard Bartz

Support as nominator --ELEKHH^T 04:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as usual, my negative comment about this type of image is the same. There has been a digital adjustment on the verticals of this picture which has made them parallel. This is an over-compesation for the error caused by the camera lens. The human eye sees things in perspective. When you remove all the vertical perspective, the result is to make the upper part of the picture look as if the elements are splaying outward i.e. the columns and upper wall of this building lean out at the top. The distortion caused by the adjustment is most apparent in the capitals of the two outermost columns which have become oval.

I would like this picture very much more, and find it more useful if the sense of height and perspective was re-introduced by allowing the upper part of the image to taper inward slightly. Amandajm (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this is the case? I disagree completely that it is obvious that verticals have been corrected. It's possible that it has been digitally perspective corrected, but I strongly suspect it hasn't. And the reason why I suspect it hasn't is because the horizon is roughly in the centre of the frame. When this is the case, no correction for the verticals is required because they are already vertical. It's only when you tilt the view upwards or downwards that you introduce leaning verticals. Also, just to correct you on one additional point, even if it were corrected, it would absolutely not be compensation for an error caused by the camera lens. It is a compensation for the reality of rectilinear perspective. The camera lens has absolutely nothing to do with it, except of course that the angle of view through the lens determines the degree to which perspective is a factor, and a wide angle lens is going to result in a larger angle of view. Also, you never responded to my last attempt to discuss with you the norm of correcting vericals in architectural photography. Ensuring that vertical lines are indeed vertical is quite fundamental to this style of photography. You're entitled to dislike this sort of correction, but to crusade against it as you appear to be doing is another thing entirely. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Diliff's points, the capitals of the two outermost columns appear unnatural when you zoom in because as this is a static photo the vanishing point does not change as it would if you would be in the church and rotate your eye. For that to occur we would need some VR photography as here. --ELEKHH^T 22:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The "horizon" of this photo is not central between the horizontal plane of the floor, and the horizontal plane of the ceiling. It is much closer to the floor. This is because the photographer or the tripod was not half as high as the building. The "horizon" (direct line of the camera's eye) was just a little higher than the top of the front altar (with the white cloth) as you would expect, because the altar is up several steps. From this horizontal both the upper sections of columns and walls, and the lower section would slope inwards slightly. This is the way the eye sees. This perspective is what gives a sense of height and depth to objects.

In old architecture, such as this, architects took into account the visual perspective. The jutting horizontal cornices, the big round carved gilded bosses, the size of the beams, the large size of figures painted on the ceiling, the outward curves entasis on the columns, the slight upward curve of the centre of the floor and many other tricks were used which make the most of the building's natural perspective. One of the most famous examples is the Parthenon. One Wiki Commons contributor took an excellent photo that demonstrated all the curved lines of the building, and then (in typical Wiki-Commons fashion, digitally straightened the building out, thereby rendering his photo totally useless for demonstrating the very thing that makes the Parthenon one of the greatest works of architecture ever created. This obsession with mathematically parallel lines spoils a great number of otherwise excellent photos, because it robs the building in the pictures of their dynamic elements of space, volume, direction and mass. Amandajm (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed my point slightly. I was not commenting on whether the camera was situated half way between the plane of the floor and the plane of the ceiling in terms of elevation, I was talking about the fact that the camera is not significantly tilted upwards or downwards, as evidenced by the fact that the plane of the horizon (you cannot see it, obviously, because it exists beyond the interior space, but you can estimate it). This is what causes verticals to tilt, not the elevation of the camera. Elevation of the camera affects other aspects of perspective but not verticals. As long as the camera remains horizontal, vertical lines stay vertical. You are right that the central point in the image is the top of the altar, which places it slightly above the camera parallel with the horizon, but this is still not an indication of perspective correction in my opinion. It could just as easily be caused by cropping the floor, which has the effect of moving the middle of the image further up, without having any effect on the tilt of verticals. And this, to me, is why this discussion on the 'evils of correcting verticals' is so silly. The human eye never sees a scene the way a photograph captures it because it never absorbs a very wide angle scene in any coherent and consistent way. We scan our eyes around, and build up a mental image comprised of different segments, aspects and details. We don't look up at a column and see it as leaning. It's only leaning relative to the other columns, but we don't see other spatially distant columns simultaneously. We perceive them in our peripheral vision, sure, but our brain doesn't process the perspective in any meaningful way in the periphery. In fact it could be argued that we don't even consciously perceive perspective at all. It's this lack of intuition that meant that it wasn't until the Renaissance that we actually discovered how to draw scenes in such a way that took perspective into account. Here's a thought experiment to prove my point. Go to a church, stand in the middle of the aisle and look straight ahead at the altar. Then slowly scan your eyes up towards the ceiling. Do the columns start progressively leaning inwards? I suggest they don't, even though our eyes have a wide enough field of view for perspective leaning to be significant. However, verticals absolutely do lean when you scan the camera upwards because the camera has a wide field of view but you are looking at the photos with an narrow angle of view that lets you see the perspective clearly with foveal vision. The preoccupation with keeping the verticals leaning, to me, seems more like a desire to keep photos looking as uncorrected photos 'normally' do (a familiarity, if you will), rather than anything to do with what the eyes see natively. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See adjusted image with vertical perspective returned to it. The image immediately becomes less flat, and looks like a place in which you could walk around. Despite the fact that the image has been cropped in the process, and less ceiling is visible, the volume and height has been returned to the building. The presence of the person who is "seeing" has been put back into the image. Amandajm (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting effect you're using there, and I'm sure some will be confused by the curved columns and floor pattern. Back to your previous comment, if you look very slightly downwards than the verticals appear vertical without any magic. While I agree with you in principle that sometimes PC can spoil images, I think in this case the image gives a good sense of the spatial depth, and the chairs, steps and table give a sense of scale, including height. As Romanesque architecture is rather massive and stable, I think perspective correction does not spoil it. Ultimately any photo is just one of many possible abstractions of reality, and choosing a perspective that shows verticals appear vertical has been and remains common in architectural perspective drawing. --ELEKHH^T 06:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the introduction of curvature of the horizontal lines is more of an issue than anything that was 'corrected' in the edit. Not to mention that a significant amount of the scene has been effectively cropped. It looks to me to be a simple barrel distortion effect. I'm interested to know in what situation perspective correction does spoil an image? The main thing I can think of is simply when it introduces so much distortion at the periphery that the subject looks grotesquely warped. I have been guilty of pushing it too far with some of my images, and I am the first to admit that, but as long as the angle of view is not ridiculously wide, I honestly don't feel that it spoils an image. I feel it actually returns a more accurate sense of how we perceive an interior space, because as I said above, I don't believe we perceive leaning verticals the way photographs portray. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it can be distracting when the periphery attracts undue attention. It sometimes happens with tall buildings and tight crops like this when a vertical building edge or a narrow strip of sky is close to the picture's edge, the perfectly vertical lines are reinforced by the frame, and strengthens the visual effect Amandajm is talking about that the building is perceived 'as if splaying outward'. --ELEKHH^T 23:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Elekhh: "Ultimately any photo is just one of many possible abstractions of reality". Too much fuss being made here and I fail to see the supposed benefits of the alternative version. -- Colin°^Talk 12:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Agree with Colin. Regardless of the perspective correction discussion, it's clearly a quality architectural photo of the interior. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Schottenkirche St. Jakob Innenraum Unten.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 14:07:07 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution and quality, interesting painting; I am unaware of any of the artist's other work being featured
Articles in which this image appears: The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things,
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Hieronymus Bosch

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 21:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Some inscriptions in the lower left circle are illegible at full size (at least to me). Btw, his The Garden of Earthly Delights is featured. Brandmeister^talk 10:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Fair point about the inscriptions; any estimate on their size in RL? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the painting's height is 120 cm, it seems that their height is about 1-2 cm at best. Perhaps the scanner should have high dpi or something like that since even the 4000x3411 version doesn't render them readable to me. Brandmeister^talk 13:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I thin it unlikely that a better image of this particular artwork will be produced for some time. The painting is under glass, which makes it hard to photograph without reflection. There is some minor compromise to clarity in the four outer roundels, most noticeable in the one with text.The text itself, being painted in white (more granular paint) over the darker (and therefore shinier smoother) surfaces, is the part that is most subject to damage by abrasion to the finished work. Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Amandajm--Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Amandajm. I would prefer higher resolution, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support.--Theparties (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hieronymus Bosch- The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XVI

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 23:46:41 (UTC)

Reason: There are several scans of this painting, but this one has the highest resolution and seems to be the closest to the original colors (since its from the Google Art Project).
Articles in which this image appears: Louis XVI of France, French Revolution, List of French monarchs
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility
Creator: Antoine-François Callet

Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 23:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 02:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Last French king. Sca (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alborzagros (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Antoine-François Callet - Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre (1754-1793), revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinotia hemistictus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 10:24:24 (UTC)

Reason: EV & HQ
Articles in which this image appears: Rhinotia hemistictus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
Creator: Spongepuppy

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as high quality and high encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Ebertakis (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, useable, although to be honest the crop feels too tight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rhinotia hemistictus (Long Nosed Weevil).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common Blue

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 10:59:22 (UTC)

Reason: HQ and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Common Blue
FP category for this image
Creator: Lviatour

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not very detailed or clear photo, and the colours are quite faded. I've taken a photo of a very similar butterfly (I self-identified it as an Adonis Blue rather than Common Blue but it's possible I'm wrong and it is indeed the Common Blue) and I think mine is significantly better. It has the same issues of focus at the tips of the wings but is otherwise a far more detailed image and a better specimen. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If File:Polyommatus bellargus - mating.jpg is Polyommatus bellargus; probaly your's too. See the difference in marks on the wing border. J e e 12:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Diliff's stunning photograph. After comparing, it's very hard to support nom. And just as a personal bias, I love seeing pairs (male and female) of these photos nominated when there is significant sexual dimorphism. Mattximus (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Ida

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 07:24:38 (UTC)

1. "I can tell a woman's age in half a minute—and I do!"
2. "Must we, till then, in prison cell be thrust?"
3. Enter Princess, reading.
4. Enter the "Daughters of the Plough," bearing Luncheon.
5. Frontispiece
6. The Gate yields. Hildebrand and Soldiers rush in.
7. "Though I am but a girl, / Defiance thus I hurl."
8. "Where are your rifles, pray?"

Reason: A fine set of images, taken from the first edition of the work. This book contains four operas, but I'm going to nominate them separately for ease of review, and because they're a bit of a nightmare to sort out. There is some half-toning, but the originals apparently haven't been available to the public since the 1960s, and are broken up and scattered. Now, we don't - at this time - have an article on the book itself. I'm working on that, but want to get my sources together first, and that will, unfortunately, take a while. Hopefully by the next set from this book. If necessary, I'm fine with breaking up the set; I think 1, at the very least, should pass without question?
Articles in which this image appears: 1 and 5 are used in Princess Ida, I've put 6 in Gilbert and Sullivan (admittedly just now), and all are in William Russell Flint, an article that, until now, has had major problems with bad fair use images.
FP category for this image: Literary illustrations is possible, but I suspect Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre is where most would expect them.
Creator: William Russell Flint, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support set. Nice to see you back, Adam. Colour halftones must have been a nightmare to sort out. My own efforts with black and white weren't all that good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually somewhat easier with very early half-toning. It gets funny spots, and there's scratches, but the rest isn't too bad. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They seem a tad on the dark side. Is it just me? Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's in the original. When I looked carefully at the originals, they were a little dark. I spent a huge amount of time trying to match the exact colours, with reasonable success, I think. Do you want me to reevaluate any in particular? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They all look pretty dark, but I guess "Daughters of the Plough" especially. If you could double-check them, I would be satisfied with that. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Checking, I'd say they're about right, I'm afraid. If anything, a smidgen light, but I don't think I'll act on that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I guess I'll have to support then :) Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I can't imagine all eight images as a TFP. Sca (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, either one is chosen as a main image, or there's a script that can show different images throughout the day. We had a 20-image set last year for Puck of Pook's Hill. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is one of those things that readers don't know or care about, but I (or whoever handles POTD when these run in about a year and a half [assuming they pass]) have to worry about. It's very doable. We've also done montages, such as with the Extermination of Evil set (Howcheng set that one up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Re FP- these have little to do with Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Theatre. Despite the fact that they illustrate plays, they have have not been produced for anything to do with theatrical production. They are not theatre posters, and do not belong to the scripts that actors would use. They are essentially book illustrations, for home reading and fit into exactly the same category as the contemporary Edmund Dulac's illustrations to "Arabian Night's, Kai Nielsens illustrations to "East of the Sun and West of the Moon" and Arthur Rackham's "Peter Pan and Wendy". If there is a class for "Literary illustrations", then that is where they belong. Amandajm (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a large number of Shakespeare works in the Theatre category that likewise don't come from productions; I think people looking for illustrations of a play will not make the distinction you're making, and would be very surprised to find these in the Literary illustrations category. Given the categories always have ambiguity, I'm pretty sure fitting unambiguously into them shouldn't be an FP criterion. We'd lose too many good images. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would go for a much more encyclopedic degree of accuracy in the cataloguing. I would put photos of productions, and theatrical posters and the like under "Theatre" and everything in this class under illustration. Where do you draw the line between an illustration to J.M. Barrie's novel "Peter Pan" and J.M. Barrie's play of "Peter Pan"? Likewise all the countless 19th century oil paintings based on Shakespearian subjects are not substantially different to all the similar pictures based on Boccaccio's "Decameron", Milton's "Paradise Lost" or Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales". They are first and foremost narrative paintings that are about the characters and stories of the plays. They are not theatrical, in the sense of being associated with the theatre. In fact, in common with all the other works that I have mentioned, most people who know Shakespeare's plays well, know them from reading them rather than from seeing theatrical productions. If book Illustrations for publications and paintings based on the subjects are usually categorised under "Theatre" then this needs to be re-thought and the works sorted into a different category. The might belong under a category named "Shakespeare" but they do not belong under the category "Theatre". These present works do not belong under "Theatre" either. They belong under "Book illustration". Amandajm (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In any case, this is getting off-topic, as the categorization is, in the end, up tot he closer, and has nothing to do with the FP. If you want to discuss it further, let's do it on the talk page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Crisco 1492, above, that it is good to see such high quality contributions from Adam Cuerden, again. Hope all is well by both of you, — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- though I agree that the colours are rather dark. My observation of illustrated books of this date is that the intensity of colour in the prints can vary from book to book, and sometimes within a book. Amandajm (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, indeed true. However, not having access to a second copy, I can only judge off of my own. =) If I get to go to Wikimania this year, I think I might well bring my copy and see what people think. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 3.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 4.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 5 (Frontispiece).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 6.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 7.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:William Russell Flint - W. S. Gilbert - Savoy Operas - Princess Ida 8.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Armstrong after moonwalk

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 23:36:32 (UTC)

Reason: A striking high quality portrait with immense historical significance.
Articles in which this image appears: Neil Armstrong
FP category for this image: People/Science and engineering or Space/Getting there
Creator: Buzz Aldrin

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Iconic. High EV, High quality image. Also, SCIENCE!!! — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow-- this has to be one of the most historic images in human history. Good nom! --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- HectorMoffet, if that is a !vote please be explicit so that nobody miscounts when closing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it was my way of saying Support, but I'm new so I don't know the criteria as well as others. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Interesting historical shot, but could be cropped more tightly. I want to tell the photographer to take One Small Step forward... Sca (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a cropped version and included it in the nom. JJARichardson (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to quibble, but suggest taking a bit more off the top, which is outta focus anyway. (At full res. Armstrong's stubbly face is interesting.) Sca (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? I've focused on the face while avoiding cropping out the NASA logo on his spacesuit. JJARichardson (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've decided to change my nomination to the cropped version. JJARichardson (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I like it — good work! Sca (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the votes above JJARichardson's "Update" above relate to the image now labeled "alternative." Chick Bowen 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT--Theparties (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note — The closeup version labeled original above is actually the 2nd cropped version, i.e. the one we're talking about at this point, per nominator JJARichardson. Sca (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Cirt's and HectorMoffet's votes are about the other one. This is why changing your nomination in the middle was not the best idea. Chick Bowen 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, one is not allowed to change one's mind? Sca (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure one is. One just shouldn't change the image marked "original", otherwise it will look like one is misrepresenting previous opinions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing semantics, all right — That's why I added the note above. Sca (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was being bold and following Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, but I'm sorry for causing any confusion. JJARichardson (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you were simply following the admonition "to boldly go where no man has gone before." Sca (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the future JJARichardson, when you upload the new version for consideration, leave the original upload as "original" and any new versions as "ALT 1", "ALT 2", etc., so that this type of semantic confusion doesn't happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alternative - I don't like the cropped version; the module in the background adds value IMO. --CyberXRef^☎ 04:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer I have marked the two as A and B. At the time that JJARichardson, Cirt, and HectorMoffet cast support votes, only B was visible, so were all clearly voting for that one. It is unclear which version Sca is supporting, and it is unclear whether JJARichardson still supports B. Theparties and CyberXRef support B, so assuming that JJARichardson didn't pull his support for that option, B is the version with consensus to promote. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was supporting A. Sca (talk)

Comment -- I support B. I regret I didn't include the alt in the conventional way, but I was swayed by enthusiasm! JJARichardson (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support B, Oppose A - The focus on this is not a portrait of Neil Armstrong, it's Armstrong after the moonwalk. We need enough context to establish the location. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Neil Armstrong.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Heym

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 03:08:52 (UTC)

Reason: This is featured on commons and has high encyclopedic value
Articles in which this image appears: Stefan Heym
FP category for this image: People
Creator: Antonisse, Marcel / Anefo

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Face behind him is distracting. Why is this black and white when it was taken in 1982? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is the face, can't we process that out. If it is the black and white, nothing we can do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:FP? #8: "Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Comment- The image is in back and white because it is an image that is dependent on texture for effect, not upon colour. Crisco 1492, as an artist and photographer, I find the fact that you are asking that question about a black and white image very disturbing. Black and White is a valid choice made by the photographer as artist.
- The background image gives depth and context to the foreground face. Amandajm (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not addressing this as an artistic work, but as an encyclopedic photograph (not everything at Wikipedia's FPC is about the photograph as a work of art, Amanda, and that question was rhetorical anyways). Skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are among the most standard requirements for identifying an individual, none of which are depicted here. Considering how common colour photography was in the 1980s, opposing black and white in preference of a colour photograph is entirely acceptable. You'll find that many other b&w portraits from the 1970s up have had a hard time at FPC (though some do pass).
  - As for the face giving depth and context, it's entirely doable without a face (which has distracting lines and tones which do not contrast very well with another face). I much prefer the use of the cabinet in Warren's picture of Coward (below). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In response, I would argue that in a bald grey-headed ageing man with dark eyes and bushy eyebrows, skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are not among the most standard requirements for identifying the person as an individual. Colour is significantly less important as a person ages, which is the reason that many portrait photos of older people are in Black and white. The structure, form and texture of the features are always significant in portraiture, and become increasingly significant as the person ages. This picture conveys those elements extremely well, and, moreover, conveys "character". If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white, then you need to reconsider your values. Would you reject an 19th century engraved portrait because it was an engraving, on the grounds that you would prefer a 19th century watercolour? Amandajm (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you seriously comparing two different mediums (apples and oranges) to two different varieties of one medium (Macintosh and Pink Lady)? Wow.
      - Yes, detail on the face is important (and the possibilities of fine grain B&W were obviously a consideration when this photograph was taken). Hair colour may have less value for identification as a person ages (assuming they do not dye it), but that is not to say all colour loses value. Again, we are not debating the value of this photograph as an artistic work. We are discussing it in the context for being featured on the English Wikipedia, which emphasizes encyclopedic work. There are many, myself included, who find black & white lacking. Don't get me wrong though, if there weren't a distracting face in the background, I'd have likely stayed neutral (and quiet) or voted a weak support (worth half a !vote). I try not to oppose simply because an image is B&W.
      - As for "If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white,", I said they generally have trouble. I never said they are routinely rejected. Many just get more opposes than colour images would have. Stop putting words in my mouth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. While I do actually like this photo, like Chris, I am not keen on the greyscale; it's something we should be avoiding in recent photographs. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- J Milburn is 1982 really considered recent?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Recent" is always relative. Relative to the development and widespread adoption of colour photography, I consider 1982 "recent". J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Sharp image of an artistic face full of character. Sca (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the picture, it's very clear. I don't think the fact that it's grayscale hurts it a slight bit. --CyberXRef^☎ 03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Black and white film was still used in 1982 for a lot of things, this doesn't look like a mere desaturated image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Stefan Heym (1982).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Park (Chicago)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 03:21:39 (UTC)

Reason: This image is featured on commons and has high encyclopedic value across many wikipedias
Articles in which this image appears: Grant Park (Chicago)
FP category for this image: Places
Creator: Poco a poco

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lede image in the English Wikipedia article, colours look nice, etc. However, did Diego forget to calibrate his camera when coming to the US? It's hard to believe he got that kind of lighting at 10:30 PM, in Chicago, in October. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even usually adjust for daylight savings let alone trips across the pond.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Lovely picture. I like the combinations of different buildings and foliage, and the way the pic is framed by the trees on one side and the curve of the path on the other. Amandajm (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously high quality as featured on Commons. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The buildings and scenery are the perfect match in this photo. ///EuroCarGT 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also like this one, and agree with you that there is a kind of harmony between the buildings and the foliage. Crisco: yes, unfortunately I forgot. It happened a few times and sometimes I realized it just one day later. The local time was 3:41 pm Poc o² 10:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll update the page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 03.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Batad Village

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 09:58:24 (UTC)

Reason: The image shows the unique lifestyle in a village in the Batad Rice Terraces.
Articles in which this image appears: Ifugao, List of World Heritage in Danger, Agriculture in the Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Cccefalon

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, striking and high resolution. Also, helps promote WP:WORLDVIEW. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Right now I'm not seeing much EV, as the article is a tad over-illustrated. Technically it's very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Banaue Philippines Batad-Rice-Terraces-02.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Central Post Office

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 09:58:20 (UTC)

Reason: This image of the Manila Central Post Office symbolizes the decay that has plagued Manila as well as its former glory
Articles in which this image appears: Pasig River, Manila Central Post Office
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Cccefalon

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful image, nice perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Sca (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - I did not nominate this because it is "beautiful" but because it is "ugly". Sometimes to see the truth that is where you look.--Theparties (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a little dark, but then, not every day is bright and sunny. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boxer Codex

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 11:44:47 (UTC)

Reason: Best image available from the text, the Boxer Codex, a late 16th century art book.
Articles in which this image appears: Boxer Codex, Filipino People, History of the Philippines
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Philipandrew

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, certainly most educational and encyclopedic. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support,--In the name effort and Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.198 (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Visible JPG artefacting, looks like it was cleaned but ... definitely digital manipulation (that font at the bottom... no way it's a 16th century font) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, priestess is spelled incorrectly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I have no idea what the "chart" was created for, when it was created or why. The original images of the Boxer Codex, as they appear on the article's page, are beautiful and interesting. This image, combining figures from the codex, is far less valuable than the codex illustrations themselves. Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the weird text. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita citrina

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 16:48:19 (UTC)

Reason: HQ and EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Amanita citrina
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi
Creator: The High Fin Sperm Whale

Support as nominator --ArionEstar (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Underexposed, background is too distracting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Soft, bad separation from the background. --Ebertakis (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Dullsville. Sca (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Greater Armenia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 22:52:23 (UTC)

Reason: Nicely made vector map of high encyclopedic value.
Articles in which this image appears: Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), Roman–Parthian War of 58–63
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: Cplakidas

Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 22:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that it has high encyclopedic value. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was a little shocked Mtskheta is spelt correctly, but, as it is, I see no reason whatsoever not to support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Cplakidas, one of the greatest users I know. Misspellings of geographic names of this region are quite common, but how else would they spell Mtskheta? --Երևանցի ^talk 18:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's that I've never seen the name before, and it has five consonants in a row, so - as I do not know much about the languages of that part of the world - it looked wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In reality it's 3 consecutive consonants (m, ts, kh), but since English doesn't have those letters, they are converted into two-letters each. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, my ignorance of Georgian aside, it's a fantastic map. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Solid SVG map. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Late to the party.--Theparties (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How precise are these boundaries? My concern is that representing them with double continuous lines makes them appear very precise, while in fact might be less so, but I am not familiar with the history.

In terms of graphics I think the map could be clearer if the labels of cities were placed within the territory to which they belong if there is pace for that. For instance the map shows Amida to be in Sophene, but the label was placed in the KoA, although there is enough space in Sophene to display it there. Also I don't see why overlapping labels across borders when is not necessary, such as in the case of "Doliche". A minor issue: the "200" on the scale bar has a different font size than the "0". --ELEKHH^T 23:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Roman East 50-en.svg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 02:46:21 (UTC)

Reason: This image is featured on commons and used in two and a half (it is cropped once) articles on WP.
Articles in which this image appears: List of Internet phenomena, McKayla Maroney
FP category for this image: People
Creator: Pete Souza

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is awesome.--Theparties (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is awesome, and a one-of-a-kind 'historic' image. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - :-, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Cute, but it's a gimmicky posed shot of political figure by a photographer who works for him. Where politicians are concerned, candid shots are much preferred. Sca (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not in Obama's article, but in the gymnasts. This shows her meeting the president, which is generally a decent indication of national recognition (especially when the president copies your signature move!) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine to include it in McKayla Maroney, but I don't think it's appropriate for TFP. Sca (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture =/= Picture of the Day. Not all FPs will be POTD, though all POTDs must be FPs. They are different processes. Please familiarize yourself with the distinction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not a fully posed shot. We can see distracting moving people behind in the original version. J e e 16:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong EV for the McKayla Maroney article and a well-executed photo, and it would also be useful in articles on how modern politicians present themselves. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't know. It feels a bit twee... We seem to love showing Obama left, right and centre, and this just feels like more of the same. I'm not necessarily convinced that her being next to Obama is actually that great- she's not a politician- I'd rather see her with a coach. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as the image is also in List of Internet phenomena, I'd argue that this is not emphasizing Obama as a person, but the president as an office, showing how far the meme went. Same goes for sporting: meme, not athletics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:J Milburn. Practically any photo of a sitting president (with practically anyone else) emphasizes that person. This pic, basically a PR shot, is just too cute — "twee" indeed. (Disclaimer: The preceding opinion has nothing to do with my politics.) Sca (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Showcases an Olympic athlete, a President of the USA and an Internet meme. That's more EV than a featured clothes iron. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But what a clothes iron! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  - Is that the same as a clothes horse? Sca (talk)
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_steam_iron.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the one. Colin did a pretty good job for product photography there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
        Indeed, deservedly a POTY candidate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If allowed I would upload a meme here mentioning that: I haven't supported this picture and mckayla is not impressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhulii 1985 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not really eye-catching or high quality but quite a good photo. ///EuroCarGT 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Kimm

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 07:18:35 (UTC)

Reason: HQ & EV
Articles in which this image appears: Fiona Kimm
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Wickuser

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Stunning portrait, but we're going to need to see OTRS permission; this is an image that Kimm uses as a publicity photo. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we get the license out of the way what about her publicity rights? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support until license issues clarified. Tomer T (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until license is established to be correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khost children in 2010 (Afghanistan)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 07:41:49 (UTC)

Reason: HQ & EV
Articles in which this image appears: Afghanistan and Demography of Afghanistan
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith (U.S Army Photographer)

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The photo is nice, not sure about the focus, if there is one. Oppose Boring.--Theparties (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Poignant. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support — I like the image. The focus is obviously the girl in the middle. She is reasonably sharp and the straight into-the-camera look while she grasps and partly hides herself behind the boy next to her really makes a beautiful photo that urges me to read an article about these kids. The problem is, the EV is thin and spread widely. Both the Afghanistan and the Demography of Afghanistan articles use the image in a mere table as an example of Pashtun people. The latter also uses a crop of the picture in this image that is also used in a few other articles like Pashtunistan and Pashtun_diaspora. Since these kids cannot really be identified as Pashtun people by the reader (no traditional dress or similar characteristics) their EV lies in their story, i.e. how they got to Camp Clark where this photo was taken. Without an article on Camp Clark or on the US-operation that got these kids there the EV is limited. --Ebertakis (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree it is poignant. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ebertakis - limited EV. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm also failing to see any real EV here. A great press photo, not so great for an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose children in 2009.jpg&diff=next&oldid=66863189 Trying to eliminate their parents, bringing them to the Refugee camps, giving them food, cloths and medicines, publishing shameless charity works... What is featurable here? J e e 08:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Merkel in 2008

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 07:50:37 (UTC)

Reason: HQ and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Angela Merkel, Politics of Germany, Woman, Angela Merkel and Leipzig University
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: א

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Oppose While it is nice to have a photo of her, I don't know if I want to see her armpits.--Theparties (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Six years old. I don't particularly like the arm waving off the frame — distracting. Sca (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well executed. Tomer T (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Face is great, do agree with Sca about the arm, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Veil Nebula - NGC6960.jpg

Cliff Dwellers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 18:59:18 (UTC)

Reason: Renomination after the previous close promotion. Important painting and high quality scan. Representative of the Ashcan School.
Articles in which this image appears: Cliff Dwellers (painting), George Bellows, Ashcan School (added now to the latter)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: George Bellows

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality image. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Useful digitization of a notable painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Crisco. Not my favourite painting, but what does that have to do with EV? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a good image; although the lack of references (only 3) makes me question the notability status of that painting just a little. --CyberXRef^☎ 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bellows CliffDwellers.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lanterns of the Dead

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 19:04:52 (UTC)

Reason: Good resolution, high quality and good EV
Articles in which this image appears: Lanterns of the Dead
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Jebulon

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strong encyclopedic value. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Rather interesting architecture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Unusual and mysterious artifact of distant times, not widely known in the U.S. (Could be cropped more tightly top & bottom.) Sca (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Interesting and good EV, is it possible to remove the CA on the top edges?-Godot13 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, mostly gone. Support-Godot13 (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo both in its own right and to illustrate the subject. Λυδ α cιτγ 07:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lanterne des Morts Sarlat.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Water Rail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 19:07:37 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and high EV. Lead photo of a featured article.
Articles in which this image appears: Water Rail, List of birds of Great Britain
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Pierre Dalous

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree it has high encyclopedic value and is high quality. Also, SCIENCE!!! — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per nom. Featured article makes the EV very high. Mattximus (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The slime on the foot threw me a bit for a minute, otherwise, excellent. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rallus aquaticus - Ralaqu.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trump International Hotel and Tower, Chicago

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 20:27:22 (UTC)

Reason: This article is featured in commons and contributes to two articles on wikipedia
Articles in which this image appears: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
Mirror
FP category for this image: Places/Urban
Creator: Poco a poco

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Featured Picture on Commons, and Picture of the Day Selection on Commons. — Cirt (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Always amazed how popular are reflections on Commons. Noting that the criteria here is different, I think EV is limited as the image neither does show the whole building, or even the whole base of the building, nor does it provide high level of detail of the facade. I also find the framing less than ideal, as the base is cropped (both the stairs on the left and on the right), the top crop appears bit random and the hand rail in the lower-left corner does not help either. --ELEKHH^T 00:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of the composition of this piece. The tight vertical crop leaves me without a clear picture of exactly how tall this building is, while the tight horizontal crop leaves me without any other objects through which I can judge this building's scale. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I do also like reflexions but rather as an artistic touch which is not always married with high EV. The building itself is not shown fully and was not the idea, either. Therefore, I share your comments, Sven and Elekhh. Poc o² 10:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bixby Creek Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 02:59:46 (UTC)

Reason: Large scenic photo wih views of the Pacific Ocean
Articles in which this image appears: California State Route 1
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Engineering_and_technology
Creator: Diliff

Support as nominator --///EuroCarGT 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Striking image. Great perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting per request: I like both of them. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I actually hadn't considered this one as a FP previously, but I suppose it has the necessary qualities. Actually the image is not just in California State Route 1, but has as much, if not more EV in Bixby Creek Bridge and Big Sur. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite modest EV in its current use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it has modest EV for the articles it illustrates. I think people often confuse encyclopaedic value with their own personal interest in the subject. If people are interested in knowing what the bridge looks like, how better could you describe it than with a high resolution photo clearly showing the bridge and its surroundings? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support I'm not really a modern photography expert - the perspective looks a little odd, insofar as the bridge looks slightly twisted - you can almost see the roadway on the left, but not as you move right. Is that normal for this type of image? Given a reassurance, I'm happy to support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it looks strange, but I suspect it's simply because the bridge is slightly curved at that end (Google Maps evidence to back me up). Because of the bend in the road, it is cambered. This is pretty normal in road building, and helps make driving more comfortable around bends. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, that's all I needed to know. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate the effort of EurocarGT to try to improve the photo but in my opinion, I don't think it is necessary, and nor has the edit actually improved the image. It now has halos in the sky typical of HDR processing or the overuse of the Shadow/Highlight tool in Photoshop, and doesn't look as realistic to my eye. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then is the original the best way to go? ///EuroCarGT 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is yes, the original is fine. It could be brightened ever so slightly perhaps, but it would be better for me to go back to the original file and do it properly. Even so, I don't think it's necessary. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then! ///EuroCarGT 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original only. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. This FP in Commons may be also worth to consider even though I prefer Diliff's version. Jee 08:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that there was already an FP on Commons. I may be biased but I prefer my version too, it shows the bridge and the ocean below more completely, although the lighting is quite different. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original only too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of the users, who !voted before the addition of the edit, expressed a positive opinion about it, and every user afterward supported the original only. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fez

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 18:40:01 (UTC)

Reason: A rare example of freely licensed video game cover art. Even rarer is that it's by a notable artist, Bryan Lee O'Malley. High resolution and delightful, it captures the theme and spirit of the game.
Articles in which this image appears: Fez (video game), Bryan Lee O'Malley
FP category for this image: Entertainment
Creator: Bryan Lee O'Malley for Polytron Corporation (uploaded by User:Czar)

Support as nominator --hahnch e n 18:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with nom. Straight from the press kit so I'm not sure if this can ever be improved upon. Mattximus (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I agree that it's about the best such picture we'll ever get. Tezero (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cute!--Theparties (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's nice to see that, at least among indie developers, we're finally getting freely licensed visual assets (previously screenshots, now also a cover). I will continue to support them here (and nominate them here, when I'm the person that secures them), because I think that there is high encyclopedic value in them, and because once these start hitting the main page, it might encourage other studios to also release visual assets under free licenses. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd maybe think twice about putting on the main page (perhaps make sure it's alongside a TFA on a traditional, scholarly topic!) but I'm certainly happy to see pictures like this featured. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hot damn! I think Bencherlite would enjoy having a reason to avoid a video game TFA. I don't think this would be too promotional as POTD, especially since we have screenshots too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (uploader). High-quality box art → high EV. The article's well on its way to FA, and just wait until you see the other media in the pipeline (the composer is compiling a medley). I've had a bunch of indie studios release assets recently, so I suppose I could bring more of them here. By the way, I didn't get a notification about the nom... just happened to run into this page. czar ♔ 07:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the link to your username would trigger an Echo notification, but maybe that's only limited to talk pages. - hahnchen 11:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It works, but only after creating the initial page (i.e. you'd have had to ping Czar after creating this page). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with all reasons given by nominator, Hahnchen, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very colorful, free work, high resolution, and by a notable artist. I definitely approve of this. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an amazing cover work with a smooth and colourful artwork. ///EuroCarGT 04:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fez (video game) cover art.png --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petrillo Music Shell and Chicago Skyline

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 19:47:19 (UTC)

Reason: This is a featured picture on commons and has been commons POTD. It appears to be technically meritorious. There are no distortions and the picture is framed so as to give it a finished look. I also like the unique colors in the sky from what is likely dusk in this westward picture.
Articles in which this image appears: Petrillo Music Shell
FP category for this image: places
Creator: Poco a poco

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sunset looks amazing! Wide shot with the skyscrapers and buildings in the middle ground is simply ideal for a FP. ///EuroCarGT 21:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a handsome shot which clearly deserves its featured status at Commons, but the EV for the Petrillo Music Shell article (the only article in which it's used) seems weak given that the music shell doesn't stand out at all: this is really a photo of the skyline at sunset. Nick-D (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to agree with Nick. If I would have to provide the best article for this shot it would rather be Architecture of Chicago IMHO, the Music Shell is not really in focus here. Poco² 09:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was rationalizing image use in Legacy Tower earlier today, and I think this would do a really good job in that article. The article really needs some expansion, mind you, but it's a decent start class, and, after the earlier rationalization, this is image 2 and shows a substantially different aspect than image 1 - and the sunset actually has an encyclopedic purpose, as the Legacy Tower is meant to reflect the sky. I think this adds enough EV to allow a Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that the EV is very strong in that article either given that the tower is at the extreme right of the photo and doesn't really stand out much. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Personally, I'd consider that an advantage. We want to show it in context, this shows the part least covered in the other image, but in a way that makes it easy to quickly point it out in the caption. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nick-D. --ELEKHH^T 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 10:53:09 (UTC)

Reason: There is no image of ship from the Philippines yet to be featured despite being a maritime country.
Articles in which this image appears: BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15), Philippines
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class (SW) Mark Logico (US Navy)

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I like it a lot (even despite the white-on-white); my only reservation is that it's a little small. Also, are they members of the Philippines Navy onboard, or are they Americans? J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Horizon is not horizontal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now that it's been straightened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support Needs rotation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust this is acceptable? May need to purge your cache. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bohol Tarsier

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 10:53:13 (UTC)

Reason: Cute. High quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Philippine tarsier, Bohol, tarsier, Philippines
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Flickr upload bot

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Colors and contrast are better in this one than in the one above. Sca (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tail is missing completely, the background is blown and there isn't a single thing in sharp focus in the image. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The quality's really below the bar on this one. Compare it to the recently promoted File:Squirrel posing.jpg- that's what we'd be looking for, here. File:Drymoreomys albimaculatus 002.jpg is a bit weaker than the squirrel shot, but it was promoted because of the extreme rarity of photos of the species. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator = mtoz; not Flickr upload bot. Pick creator from the author field than from the upload log. J e e 07:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ebertakis and J Milburn, and suggest speedy close. This has been placed into the above articles on the day of nomination, sometimes in quite unfitting articles or sections, as well as poor captions. I would suggest the nominator to read more carefully WP:FP?, in particular #5, and pay attention when crediting the author per Jee above. --ELEKHH^T 23:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarsier Hugs Mossy Branch

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 10:53:16 (UTC)

Reason: Cuter! High quality and EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Philippine tarsier, Primate, Tarsiiformes, Wildlife of the Philippines
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Julia W

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... in favor of the other shot below. Sca (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to tail cut-off, but I prefer this photo over the one below. Anyway I hope sooner or later we'll feature this animal. Brandmeister^talk 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit better than the one below but very noisy. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; nice, but noisy. I think the colours may be a bit off, too. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinatubo eruption

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 10:53:20 (UTC)

Reason: Iconic image from a historic event
Articles in which this image appears: Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, List of stratovolcanoes
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: Hike395

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Not bad, but could be more contrasty. Sca (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really do not like the crop; the original crop has much better composition, as it gives a sense of depth. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Monroe

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 17:48:41 (UTC)

Reason: This is a featured picture on commons and a former commons POTD. These recognitions denote the good execution of the photo. It has EV by adding context as a supplementary picture at Legacy Tower. I think it is as important as the main image in that use.
Articles in which this image appears: Legacy Tower
Chicago Loop
FP category for this image: places/urban
Creator: Poco a poco

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Theparties (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Presuming that the perspective isn't too distorting - and it looks fine, I just don't know Chicago - this is one of the most unique and compelling images I've seen of a city in some time. Article usages are acceptable, could be more prominent, but good enough to add value. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and rationalized the images in Legacy Tower. This one's clearly the best, and shows things far better than any of the other images did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also like this picture very much. That stretched Hummer was the perfect chance to balance the composition against the skyscrapers with a little help of a wide angle lens. Poc o² 09:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wonderful perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added it to Metra Electric District, since we don't seem to have another good shot of the outlet of the Millennium Station tunnel. Chick Bowen 00:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot, and agree with Poc that the Hummer helps the composition. Currently the EV is dispersed in several articles and there is no article about East Monroe Street where it would have the highest EV (if notable). However the EV in Legacy Tower is sufficient. As it seems that this image was taken from the Nichols pedestrian bridge, I think this should be specified in the file description. --ELEKHH^T 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Calle E Monroe St, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 04.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Ägir

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 01:58:27 (UTC)

Reason: high quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: SMS Ägir (most EV), Odin-class coastal defense ship, List of coastal defense ships of Germany
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Hugo Graf

Support edit as nominator --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Edit has made the picture more vivid. ///EuroCarGT 02:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. Think I might have a poke at this one. Keep voting, though, I'll let everyone know when I'm done, if changes happen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — You don't see many depictions of 19th century German warships that predated the WWI navy. Historically interesting. Sca (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, certainly most unique, per Sca note, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Theparties (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration uploaded, support edit There was a lot of damage to the bottom edge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit — Looks fine to me. Sca (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit, noticeable improvements. Good job, — Cirt (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:S.M. Küstenpanzerschiff Ägir - restoration.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferyi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 04:41:34 (UTC)

**Original** – An illustration of a Philippine eagle

Reason: This is the best qualified image available of the bird.
Articles in which this image appears: Philippine eagle
FP category for this image: ~~Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations~~Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Henrik Grönvold

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I love the image, but there's a LOT of JPEG artefacting and it's tilted. The first of these can't be fixed, really, without a better copy. That said some playing with https://ia600204.us.archive.org/10/items/ibis49brit/ MIGHT find a higher resolution copy in one of the zipped files. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion yet on the picture, but, if promoted, this should go in Animals/Birds. It's useful as a likeness of the bird, not as a literary illustration. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Theparties (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Creator = Henrik Grönvold? J e e 07:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response The one who uploaded it.--Theparties (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One who upload or do some minor tweak can't claim copyright or credit over the original author. Here it is by Henrik Grönvold, a naturalist and artist, known for his illustrations of birds. J e e 09:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how that works.--Theparties (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah examining coins

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 09:59:51 (UTC)

Reason: Historic image of Jinnah examining the first coins minted in Pakistan. High encyclopaedic value.
Articles in which this image appears: Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistani Rupee
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator: Uploaded by Wamiq.

Support as nominator --—ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Halftoned and blurry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I assume this has been scanned from a newspaper? No matter how high the resolution of the scan, the source material isn't exactly ideal. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly from a newspaper, but from a book which has pictures taken from newspapers.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

URAA problems: Pakistan was founded in 1947. Pakistan copyright law says photographs keep copyright 50 years past publication. This means that nothing went out of copyright in Pakistan before the U.S. implemented the URAA, giving it a U.S. Copyright, and making it ineligible for Wikipedia. This is an awful situation, but not one that we can do anything about. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I have some questions regarding this: When does that US copyright expire? And if this copyright is assumed, are no images created in Pakistan (after 1947) eligible to be used on Commons? (I was planning of uploading a dozen or so images of really historic events) —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurry, poor quality photograph, with low EV. Mattximus (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Jane Grey

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 14:42:28 (UTC)

**Original** – The Streatham Portrait, discovered at the beginning of the 21st century and believed to be a copy of a contemporary portrait of Lady Jane Grey, *de facto* queen of England for 9 days in 1553

Reason: High resolution, nice and sharp, near-contemporary (40 years difference for this copy, the original portrait may have been closer). Interesting information about provenance will allow for a good POTD blurb. A big thank you to Dcoetzee for purchasing this digitization
Articles in which this image appears: Streatham portrait, Lady Jane Grey, +8
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, yes, yes. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. Mattximus (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with analysis by nominator Crisco 1492, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Godot13 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support One more.--Theparties (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've written an article on the portrait here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Streathamladyjayne.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry David Thoreau daguerreotype

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 22:37:26 (UTC)

Reason: The image size is below the preferred dimensions, but I believe that the picture is iconic and historically important enough to warrant featuring. It is strikingly clear for a daguerreotype. I have seen it reproduced in a manner similar to Guerrillero Heroico.
Articles in which this image appears: Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience (Thoreau), History of anarchism, Individualist anarchism in the United States, Slavery in Massachusetts
FP category for this image: People/Artists and writers
Creator: Benjamin D. Maxham

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Aside from resolution, the image looks a bit jpg artefacted. Also, there are higher resolution images of him elsewhere, such as at the LOC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd love to see more philosophy-related FPs, but the quality's really lacking, here. File:Benjamin D. Maxham - Henry David Thoreau - Restored - greyscale - straightened.jpg would have a much better chance, though I certainly see why this one was chosen. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this restored version to the nom as an alternate choice. JJARichardson (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also fixed the awkward tilt of the alt version. JJARichardson (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but I don't like the crop: It's too tight at the top. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

I've reverted to what was there when J. Milburn suggested the file, per the pertinent guideline (i.e. as a VI this should not be overwritten). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- I much prefer the alternative. Amandajm (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both versions. We have significantly sharper images from the 1850s, so I'm not willing to overlook the obvious damage to the alternate just because of its age. As to the original, I agree with the above posters. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Jet Assisted Take-Off flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 23:34:23 (UTC)

Reason: Take-off of America's first "rocket-assisted" airplane, an Ercoupe fitted with a GALCIT developed solid propellent 28 pound thrust JATO (Jet Assisted Take-Off) booster. High resolution image with significant historical and educational value.
Articles in which this image appears: JATO, Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory, Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer), ERCO Ercoupe
FP category for this image: Vehicles/Air
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considerable dust and some scratching. I may get to it if I have time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Restoration uploaded over the original. Looks better now. Technical issues can be forgiven owing to the uniqueness of this image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support edited version. JJARichardson (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: this is a duplicate !vote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Crisco. That said, can something be done about the thumbprint/scuffmarks on the seat of the trousers of the third person from the left? Very, very distracting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading as we speak. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's much better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for promotion. (Note, that there is duplicate !vote on the page.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish Bath

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 00:42:34 (UTC)

Reason: Very high resolution, high quality, notable painting
Articles in which this image appears: The Turkish Bath +8
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ALT 2 as well. Agree with Chick that the palimpsest effect is useful for seeing the history of the work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I've changed my mind. --Theparties (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, support alt (unretouched). Removing the corners of the canvas was a poor decision. The palimpsestic effect is important, carries a lot of information since it reveals how the original rectangular painting was converted to a tondo, and is also just extremely interesting. White backgrounds in general are not a great way to display tondo paintings, but particularly this one! Chick Bowen 05:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support alt 2. Chick Bowen 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The alt seems pretty dark. --101.108.118.28 (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, but perhaps some brightening is indeed warranted. Good choice anyway. Brandmeister^talk 09:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support alt 2 Brandmeister^talk 09:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support orig. — Not impressed by palimpsestic aspect, and I don't think most readers/viewers would be either. For what it's worth, French, Spanish and Dutch Wikis all use the retouched version in their entries on The Turkish Bath (as does English Wiki). Iconic. Sca (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~both~~ original and Alt1. This may sound ridiculous, but can we not have something between the two? Both have their merits... J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, done, though this is a much more conservative edit than the original (which introduced too much green in my view). Chick Bowen 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the kind of thing I was meaning. Neutral for now. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise — I'm OK with Alt. 2. Sca (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To make things easier for the closer, I'd suggest explicitly writing "Support ALT2". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt. 2 — Sca (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose---The cropped version is the more useful for almost all practical purposes, although the uncropped version would have purpose in an article specifically about this particular painting. In a general article on French painting, on Classical painting or of the artist, the cropped version is to be preferred as indicated above. On the other hand, the cropped version has been brightened to a state where the coloration of the shadows on the principal figure has been lost. I can't support either state. Amandajm (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the three images has enough support for promotion (2/5 for the original, 1/3 for alt and 4/5 for alt 2). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lula

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 07:30:46 (UTC)

Reason: ~~Why hasn't this been featured yet?~~ Found the answer.
Articles in which this image appears: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil, O Maior Brasileiro de Todos os Tempos, 1945
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Ricardo Stuckert (Presidency of the Republic).

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — CROP! But even if cropped, why? Sca (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a cropped version to the nom, which I give my support to. JJARichardson (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While having the Palácio da Alvorada in the background is in principle a good idea, the composition is very poor, as the building is too blurred to be easily recognizable (note how in one of the previous failed FPCs it has been mistaken for the Palácio do Planalto without anyone noticing it), while the composition is too busy, with the background distracting from the subject. Furthermore, the harsh flash light makes it look like a collage (as already pointed out in the two failed FPCs). --ELEKHH^T 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ELEKHH. Cropped version is better, but still too much 'noise' (we don't really need to see his sash or whatever it is). Sca (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Lepanto

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 10:34:46 (UTC)

Reason: Original photograph of the painting
Articles in which this image appears: The Battle of Lepanto, Juan Luna
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Juan Luna

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a very poor reproduction of the painting. For just one problem, look at the dark areas in the bottom left. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per preceding comment by J Milburn. Looks amateurish. Sca (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it looks like a photograph of a photograph of a painting. Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafnium

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 11:09:59 (UTC)

Reason: a nice and high resolution view of remelted hafnium pellets
Articles in which this image appears: Hafnium, Thin-film_optics
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Sciences/Materials_science
Creator: Alchemist-hp

Support as nominator --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would a pure white background work better? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A true white background looks always overexposed for me. This image was taken on a frosted glass plate (milk glass plate?). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Though I'd like to see your reply to Hahnchen before !voting, as I agree that the second image is quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think something like File:Hafnium ebeam remelted.jpg which also shows the metal unoxidised has a greater encyclopedic value. - hahnch e n 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right too. But the other image don't show us the main: the crystalline struckture of this material. It is "normal" to see the colorful thin oxide layer at remelted hafnium metal samples. Also at ebeam remelted material, because Hf is a very good Getter material. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Brackenheim (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bellus Delphina ^talk 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hafnium pellets with a thin oxide layer.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruddy Kingfisher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 22:29:53 (UTC)

Reason: high resolution, free license, and avoids inappropriate digital manipulation
Articles in which this image appears

FP category for this image: Animal
Creator: Jason Thompson

Support as nominator --Ariefrahman (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus is a bit off at the tail and at the beak, but the fish more than makes up for it. --Ebertakis (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Theparties (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a few spots are out of focus, but generally pretty solid picture. Mattximus (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support like it Godhulii 1985 (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice shot. Beautiful bird. Poor fish. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ruddy Kingfisher.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Riccardi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 04:10:06 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Andrea Riccardi
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: א

Support as nominator --Bellus Delphina ^talk 04:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support OOF around his face and the mic is in the way (resolution is rather small too). However, the pose is quite nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common walnut

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 06:50:38 (UTC)

Reason: I am feeling guilty I did not change my vote the first time
Articles in which this image appears: Juglans regia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits
Creator: George Chernilevsky

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a caveat The image is quite good, but the usage could be a bit better. Normally, images in galleries are only allowed if they're part of a large set, but I think this gallery is particularly well-used - illustrating each aspect of the plant with a different image - so am happy make an exception. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per last time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CyberXRef^☎ 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice image but the reason for nomination is funny. Bellus Delphina ^talk 20:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Juglans regia 2009 G2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Kennedy and JFK, 1962

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 17:48:27 (UTC)

Reason: A unique, aesthetically impressive and high quality photograph of the subjects.
Articles in which this image appears: Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, America's Cup, USS Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (DD-850)
FP category for this image: People/political
Creator: Robert Knudsen

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather grainy and bad composition: Jackie's head obstructs a good portion of John's face, that in combination with his dark glasses renders him almost unrecognizable. In addition, Jackie's navy-blue dress and John's also navy-blue sweater blend almost seamlessly thus making Jackie look as if she has grown a hand out of her back. This is just a retro-looking celebrity snapshot. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I like the idea, with the background resembling a nineteenth-century oil painting of a naval battle. But the actual photo is problematic, as noted above, with a partially obscured face and a bothersome piece of plywood with a map on it in front of Mrs. Kennedy. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon meets Elvis Presley

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 19:30:50 (UTC)

**Original** – December 21,1970: U.S. President Richard Nixon meets musician Elvis Presley in the Oval Office; Elvis was motivated to contact Nixon by his contempt for the hippie drug culture and support for Nixon's War on Drugs

Reason: This was nominated six years ago without consensus. I want to give it another shot. It is a high quality and iconic photograph of significant cultural and historical value. Features "two of the two greatest recording artists of the 20th century". *wink* (If Obama and McKayla can be featured, then why not this?)
Articles in which this image appears: Richard Nixon, Elvis Presley, Oliver F. Atkins, Elvis Meets Nixon
FP category for this image: People/political
Creator: Oliver F. Atkins

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Added a cropped version to the nom. JJARichardson (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Tighter! (Who cares about the flags? Here we have two famous faces ... or should I say, one infamous and one famous face?) Sca (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Done. JJARichardson (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative — A nice, if gritty, juxtapositioning of two rather haunting historical / cultural figures known the world over. Sca (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose alt - The context is half the story. This is not "Tricky Dick went somewhere, saw Elvis". This is "Tricky Dick invited Elvis to the oval office" (if I recall the story, after Elvis said he wanted to work for Nixon...). That and the original is the most widely reproduced version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For 1970 I think it's a mediocre quality (fuzzy and black-'n'-white), Elvis deserves a color photo. Brandmeister^talk 09:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have done an image search and found no decent colour version. JJARichardson (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is grainy, but the subjects outweigh that. Still support cropped version, which remains identifiably White-House-ish. Sca (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support either version for basic quality and historical meaning. I see Crisco's point, but that's a messy Oval Office. Problem with the cropped version is that the flags are a bit distracting; problem with the other is that the bookcase is distracting. Can't win 'em all, I suppose: both versions are important. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm honestly not convinced of particularly high EV, here. Possibly in the film article, but it's hardly well-developed... J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a great characterisation of the two significant people. The uncropped picture is well composed and gives real context, which the cropped version doesn't. The cropped version is badly composed because of the tightness of the cropping. I strongly oppose using the cropped version. Amandajm (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hate the cutoff legs, but... y'know, both dead, can't retake... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Elvis-nixon.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the original has enough support for promotion (5/6, while 4/7 for the edit). Placed image in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment, because Presley's article describe the circumstances of the photo. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voltairine de Cleyre

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 22:45:19 (UTC)

Reason: A simply superb and striking portrait. Perhaps some minor imperfections, but bear in mind when it was taken.
Articles in which this image appears: Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism in the United States, Anarchism without adjectives
FP category for this image: People/political
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do feel that the image could use a bit of a clean, but this would potentially be a fantastic TFP for International Women's Day, if we haven't got anything else lined up. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing yet, though I'd love to schedule this. I have someone over for the next week, but perhaps Adam Cuerden would have time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for cleanup at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop. JJARichardson (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on this one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration uploaded, support restoration. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. Thanks Adam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. JJARichardson (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration: A very good restoration of a historically valuable photograph. — P. S. Burton (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration, I also think it's a decent TFP candidate for March 8. Brandmeister^talk 16:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. Nice work! Kaldari (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amandajm (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Voltairine de Cleyre (Age 35).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Dumas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 01:14:53 (UTC)

Reason: Since we're on a run of notable writers, how about Alexander Dumas of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo fame?
Articles in which this image appears: Alexandre Dumas
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Nadar

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution --Երևանցի ^talk 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. This is one of the early photographic types, which means it's a bit low-contrast, but what are we going to do? Go back in time? It'd be misleading to misrepresent the photo. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nadar - Alexander Dumas père (1802-1870) - Google Art Project 2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koch – Mayor of the City of New York

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 03:24:05 (UTC)

Reason: Ed Koch posed for this portrait in May of 2011 at his law office, Bryan Cave LLP: In memory of Ed Koch (December 12, 1924 — February 1, 2013), ARTstor, Happy birthday to Mayor Ed Koch!, Dmitry Borshch, Catalog of American Portraits (CAP), National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution
Articles in which this image appears: Борщ, Дмитрий Геннадиевич, Борщ Дмитро Геннадійович
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: Dmitry Borshch

Support as nominator --DmitryBorshch (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it needs to be in use in articles on English Wikipedia to be eligible for featured picture here. I think the easiest way forwards would be if you worked with someone to make a really well-sourced article on yourself, which this and other images could then be added into. (It would also provide context that could be linked to from Ed Koch's page). Now, obviously, you'll need to be a little careful: writing your own article is frowned upon, but, so long as you mainly act as a supplier of reliable sources to show your notability and such, it should be fine. A quick web search shows ample evidence that you're notable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment, Adam. I nominated this picture because in Featured picture criteria it is not specified that an article must be in English, and cannot be in Russian. If you can, please support this nomination.
- User:ГатиловСергей who published the two articles above is a curator who worked with me on several exhibitions. Maybe he will publish an English one too.DmitryBorshch (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I hardly believe other wikipedians will vote for this pic because it's not in any en.wikipedia.org page...Godhulii 1985 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until used. EV on the English Wikipedia is not derived from the Russian Wikipedia. It's that simple. Or should a POTD blurb be in Russian? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Hi Crisco, since you've admin right so please modify Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article texts of Criteria for featured pic page. Mentioning that the picture must be used in english wikipedia would be helpful. No-7 mention about file description being in english, not about being used in en.wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhulii 1985 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's perfectly clear. This is the featured picture process on the English Wikipedia, for featured picture status on the English Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Street; Rainy Day

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 23:58:15 (UTC)

Reason: High quality scan of a notable work of art
Articles in which this image appears: Paris Street; Rainy Day, Gustave Caillebotte, +7
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Gustave Caillebotte

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — P. S. Burton (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Iconic, and a nice illustration of the rule of thirds. Sca (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing --Երևանցի ^talk 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent illustration. --Carioca (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me. As per above. Mattximus (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--It is an excellent reproduction of an extremely odd painting. It is, in fact, a great demonstration as to how the formal concept of a rule of thirds may not be applied by an artist who dares challenge it. What we have here is a painting divided precisely down the middle by a lamppost, separating the near from the far. This division is then further divided into quarters. The face of the young woman is in the middle of the right side, both horizontally and vertically. In the left side, a small distant couple occupies the same position, one quarter of the way across the painting. The single notable object that occupies a "thirds" position is the umbrella that shelters the righthand couple. It is all very tidy, very challenging and a little surreal. Amandajm (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my possibly benighted view, the eye focuses on the gentleman under the umbrella, and he is about two-thirds of the way across the canvas. However, I concede that some of Caillebotte's other works [1] more readily illustrate the rule of thirds. Sca (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gustave Caillebotte - Paris Street; Rainy Day - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luzon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 07:04:47 (UTC)

Reason: Incomplete satellite image of Luzon, one of the world's largest and most populated islands
Articles in which this image appears: Luzon, Luções, Luzon rainforest, Geography of the Philippines
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think incomplete photo is passable - indeed, seems to be cut-off at the bottom, compared to the map. Nice though. Brandmeister^talk 15:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Urweider

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 11:39:00 (UTC)

Reason: High quality and good EV, high resolution
Articles in which this image appears: Raphael Urweider
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Harald Krichel

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd take about 300px off the top — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to see more than one shirt button, either. Sca (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd be that drastic. This is close to a quarter-length portrait, which is acceptable enough to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you suggest an edit? Tomer T (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uploading a crop over this one. If I'm reverted I'll upload separately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support cropped version (right now marked Original) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. I'm not fussed about crops, but I can only support if (firstly) an English description is added to Commons and (secondly) the article is beefed a little further (at the least, a couple of decent sources are added to a further reading list). J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like the choice of background here. It's too distracting. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 05:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that the background could have been better separated, but I don't find it too distracting. Detail is good, and the pose is pleasant. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Gibbon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 18:29:09 (UTC)

Reason: Appropriate size and high encyclopedic value.
Articles in which this image appears: Edward Gibbon, Historian, Historiography
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers (historian=writer?) or
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering (social sciences?) or
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Henry Walton (painter)

Support as nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 18:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is the original size of the painting? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9 in. x 6 1/2 in. (229 mm x 165 mm) [2] --Երևանցի ^talk 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems reasonable in terms of resolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Amandajm (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not a huge fan of oval cropped images, but this seems to be original. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Adam Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Edward Gibbon by Henry Walton cleaned.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 19:20:02 (UTC)

Reason: I've always liked this image, and now that we have an unambiguously good version, I think we should promote it.
Articles in which this image appears: Jeremiah, Book of Lamentations, Book of Jeremiah, et al.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Rembrandt van Rijn

Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, perhaps this is how it was... Brandmeister^talk 20:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the standard English title would help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice full, clear image. ///EuroCarGT 04:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes!--Theparties (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- The painting has been reproduced in English books on Rembrandt for the last 150 years at least, always with the English name "Jeremiah lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem". I can't understand why the caption is in Dutch. Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But Rembrandt was, in fact, Dutch, so it does seemt he Dutch should be favoured. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - English Wikipedia and all that. Of course, the article on the painting (if written) would have the original Dutch in addition to the English title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I think verwoesting may be more accurately translated as "devastation." It's a cognate of the German Verwüstung, incorporating the word for desert (Dutch: woestijn; German: Wüste) — and thus implies reducing something to a wasteland.

In any case, there's no need to capitalize "Destruction." Sca (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you consider it part of a proper noun, like "Battle of Shiloh". It's a subtly different meaning capitalized and uncapitalized. Doesn't mean I know which one is right, of course. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're considering this the title of a work or art, it would seem that "lamenting" also should be capitalized.... Sca (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. In short, there are as many ways to capitalize the title of this work as I have cousins. I don't think it detracts from the value of the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many cousins do you have? Sca (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the count is 12 or 13 now. French-Canadian family. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Jeremia treurend over de verwoesting van Jeruzalem - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles arrive in America

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 23:11:41 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution photo of significant historical event in 20th century culture. They also line up from left to right nicely: John, Paul, George and Ringo.
Articles in which this image appears: The Beatles, The Beatles in the United States, List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, United Kingdom–United States relations, Rock music, British rock, British pop music, British Invasion, Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album
FP category for this image: People/artists and writers
Creator: United Press International, photographer unknown

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Good value, nice composition, but the quality isn't quite there, for me. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza de toros Monumental de Maracaibo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 13:47:44 (UTC)

Reason: High Quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Plaza de toros Monumental de Maracaibo
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Wilfredor

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you think we should crop a little bit of the bottom, where the perspective deistortion is particularly strong? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much are you thinking? I think losing the seats would be a bad idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd have to be somewhere around the nearest group of spectators to the camera. Anything too radical would look odd, but removing as much of the distorted section as is practical would help. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ///EuroCarGT 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems quite unsharp and oversaturated to me... - Zephyris _Talk 14:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Cardington Sheds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 15:52:24 (UTC)

Reason: Picture is one of the best photos of RAF Cardington and therefore has great encyclopedic value.
Articles in which this image appears: RAF Cardington, Airship hangar
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Iiboharz

Support as nominator --Iiboharz (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight (I'd say a meter to your left and a lens length of 35 mm would have been better for framing) and it looks like the high f number caused significant enough diffraction. Looks noisier than I'd have expected as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning oppose. The framing is indeed a bit bothersome. The noise doesn't bother me so much (or, what noise?); it rather suggests a narrative. Pleasing, but not outstanding. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Crisco, the aperture of f/22 is a significant factor in the softness of the image. I would have also liked to have seen a slightly different composition (the sheds more centred with more grass and less sky), but that's just me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egon Schiele

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 15:29:16 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution scan of a free work by a notable artist which is used in several major articles about painting.
Articles in which this image appears: Egon Schiele, History of painting, 20th-century Western painting, +2
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers, I should think, as this painting doesn't have an article about it yet.
Creator: Egon Schiele

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I generally think that Google Art errs on the side of too little brightness (probably in an effort to avoid any glare off the paint texture), in this case it doesn't make much difference since most of the painting is basically white or light gray. Kaldari (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although he did tons of self-portraits, this seems to be the most suitable for the infobox, and is high quality. --ELEKHH^T 12:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amandajm (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'd be inclined to put it under paintings. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As this also serves as an example of the artist's work, that wouldn't be a travesty. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aye, it's on the border between the two, but given his article has a photograph of him as well from about the same period, I'd lean towards considering the primary EV as painting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Egon Schiele - Self-Portrait with Physalis - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kasubi Tombs

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 17:56:11 (UTC)

Reason: Rare photo of the tombs before it partially burned down in 2010
Articles in which this image appears: Kasubi Tombs, List of World Heritage Sites in Africa
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: not not phil from SF, CA, US

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support Framing is a little tight, and it looks soft to me. The historicity of this image makes me feel like supporting though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking the "weak". Amanda's convinced me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support for reasons mentioned by Crisco. The photo is better than decent, but not outstanding in any way that I see. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- I often read the comment here that pictures are not sufficiently "encyclopedic" for one reason or another. This is a very useful purely "encyclopedic" photograph of its subject. My only hesitation was that the thatch appears blurry. I have just looked at other pictures of this thatch and I'm sufficiently convinced that it has been created using a type of straw that has fluffy heads, so that the entire surface of the roof has a homogenous appearance that one does not usually see unless the thatch is quite decayed. This contrasts where the straw is cropped at the ends. Amandajm (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Amanda. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV, very nice picture; this tomb was burnt down, so new photos might not even be possible --CyberXRef^☎ 11:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kampala Kasubi Tombs.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US currency - Series 1914 Federal Reserve Note denomination set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 20:38:24 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, high EV (greater EV viewed as a set). This set nomination is a complete Series 1914 denomination reference set of Federal Reserve Notes.
The Series of 1914 Federal Reserve Note was the first currency issued under the Federal Reserve Act (December 23, 1913) which established the Federal Reserve System and the 12 Federal Reserve Banks. The red seal notes were part of the initial printing and are scarcer than the later issued blue seal notes. The district seal on each note indicates the Federal Reserve Bank of issue.
All notes are from the Smithsonian Institution collection.

Original – A 10-note complete Series 1914 denomination reference set of Federal Reserve Notes.

Articles in which these images appear: Federal Reserve Note

FP category for this image: Currency

Creator: The Bureau of Engraving and Printing
From the National Numismatic Collection, NMAH, Smithsonian Institution.
Images by Godot13.

Denomination typeset of Series 1914 Federal Reserve Notes

$5 (Fr.832a)
Abraham Lincoln
$5 (Fr.848)
Abraham Lincoln
$10 (Fr.894b)
Andrew Jackson
$10 (Fr.919a)
Andrew Jackson

$20 (Fr.958aa)
Grover Cleveland
$20 (Fr.1010)
Grover Cleveland
$50 (Fr.1019a)
Ulysses Grant
$50 (Fr.1053)
Ulysses Grant

$100 (Fr.1074a)
Benjamin Franklin
$100 (Fr.1131)
Benjamin Franklin

Support as nominator --Godot13 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This strikes me as having questionable EV. It's only used as a set in a gallery, midway through a page littered with galleries (so much so that I would advocate removing some, like the Series 1914 district seals). They're very nice, but unless the article on Federal Reserve Notes is split into several articles based on series, I don't think that this, as a set, is going to be prominent enough. I am leaning oppose but will await a response. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Sven- I do understand your concern. This particular article posed real difficulty in trying to figure out how to make a complete set stand out given the clutter. I thought about trying to turn the whole article into a list, but Federal Reserve Notes are the most populous issue of all US currency and there is no way I could ever complete a comprehensive end product. I'm not sure the Series of 1914 has enough pizazz to warrant its own article. However, the series was continued with 4 more notes in 1918 (a $500, $1000, $5000, and $10000, all blue seal only) making these 14 types the only large-size Federal Reserve Notes. Would you recommend withdrawing pending creation of a short list/article devoted to these images? -- Godot13 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd try and write an article. There are likely sources. I mean, have you seen how long coin articles can be? I doubt a national issue of "paper" currency would not get some attention. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crisco 1492, just to clarify, are you suggesting that you will try writing an article or that I should? (I was reading the above as I should).-Godot13 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You. "(If I were you,) I would try"... I don't have access to sources like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL! That's what I thought. I have a few things I'm currently working on so I'd like to either put this nomination on hold (for a while) or withdraw it with the intention of renominating down the road.-Godot13 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn until a specific article can be written. - Godot13 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 00:30:26 (UTC)

Reason: Seems to meet the criteria. Natural pose and high resolution. Tasteful studio aesthetic.
Articles in which this image appears: John McCain, 2008 Republican National Convention, Family of Barack Obama, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, Current United States Senators, Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain
FP category for this image: People/political
Creator: United States Congress

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Why? Are we going to run official pix of all 535 members of the U.S. Congress? I doubt it. ( Disclaimer: This comment has nothing to do with my politics.) Sca (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, some of the official portraits are terrible. But if we have good photographs, why the hell shouldn't we? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I just don't see any journalistic or encyclopedic point in running official pix of politicians in a stand-alone, featurey format. Official pix are meant to be suitable for promotional purposes. Where politicos are concerned, timely candid shots are much more legitimate as illustrations of life on Planet Earth. This one is already five years old. Sca (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have featured images which are studio shots of American politicians. I fail to see how this is any different. JJARichardson (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting about it? Sca (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Sca. --ELEKHH^T 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see an issue with using studio shots, so long as the quality is there. We promoted studio shots of Civil War generals (a ton of them), the President of Brazil, some US Military and US political figures, and a handful of notable entertainers. For the process to at all be credible, we can't say that studio shots of entertainers are okay, but studio shots of politicians aren't. That being said, this is a particularly bad shot of John McCain. The facial expression isn't natural and there is some weird distortions between the side of his face and the flag. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 05:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Running official (and probably Photoshopped) photos of serving politicians amounts to free political advertising. Sca (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sca: How is it different from running commissioned studio portraits of entertainers, or video game screenshots released under free licenses, or images taken by editors who add to the file description a prominent link to their personal websites, which offer commercial photography services? Are photographs from NASA advertisements? Those images were the reason why I got so upset when they were thinking of letting the Hubble telescope decay a few years ago, and I saw those images on the main page. For that matter, what makes McCain different from Nils Torvalds, who's FP nomination you have not opposed? As to your concern about photoshop, we've promoted hundreds of images that have been edited after the fact. Every studio shot we have has likely been touched up, most of our space shots are artificially colored, and literally everything that Adam Cuerden has nominated has been restored using an image editing program. It would certainly be inappropriate to put an image of a politician up while they're in active re-election campaign mode, but if it's not election season, I don't see it as being at all a big deal. What I'm trying to say is that, ultimately, just about everything we put on the front page could be considered advertising if you tried hard enough. I don't think it's a good argument, especially when it's only selectively applied. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 05:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sven, chill!

Four observations:

I did oppose Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney on exactly the same grounds, even though that pic. arguably has human-interest value.
I didn't oppose the nomination of Mr. Torvald, a Finn, because he's not a U.S. politician and thus rather beyond my scope. (I am somewhat knowledgeable about German politics, however.)
In the U.S., at least, politicians are always assumed to be running for reelection and thus eager for free publicity/exposure.
Not running official photos of serving politicians — except as mugshots with, or illustrations of, stories featuring said politicians — is journalism ethics, to avoid the appearance of pandering to their interests. But if candid news shots are available, they are preferred even in such cases.

Sca (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howrah Bridge elevation and extent

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 06:30:34 (UTC)

**Original** – Howrah Brigde elevation and extent

Reason: Has EV, is of high resolution (being a vector), does not have technical faults, free, verifiable.
Articles in which this image appears: Howrah Bridge
FP category for this image: Diagrams
Creator: Roulex 45

Support as nominator --Soham 06:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Little visual interest, except perhaps to civil engineers. Sca (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Diagrams can be very useful, and this one shows the structure nicely, but is too much simplified. For instance the clearance in the middle is 8.8m whereas at the shore is 5.5m, thus the base line is not horizontal. This is clearly visible in all the pictures, but misrepresented here. The diagram should also indicate the unit of measurement as "metres" to avoid confusions, as the article often indicates dimensions in feet. The "Tramway" label would be much better positioned below the bridge structure, to avoid unnecessary interference. --ELEKHH^T 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Elekhh and ~"wikipedia's best work". Just a suggestion: the tramway label should be translated to english if possible Godhulii 1985 (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Also, units of measurement would be nice to have. Mattximus (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without units these values are absolutely useless; this hurts its EV. As per above, the label about a tram really needs to be in English. --CyberXRef^☎ 08:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 05:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Statue

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:01:29 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, used in a lot of articles and good EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Wellington Statue, Aldershot, Aldershot, Arms, titles, honours and styles of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Matthew Cotes Wyatt, List of public art in the City of Westminster
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
Creator: Lewis Hulbert

Support as nominator --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Really dark. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a new version. Is that better? --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I have a feeling that a better shot is still possible. Right now the image is not in the article (removed as "Not sure its a better photo as too dark to see statue detail") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can this nomination be suspended until this discussion comes to a conclusion? Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Suggest fotog gets closer and shoots from an oblique angle of some kind. Sca (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not FP level: the large tree in the background is distracting, although avoidable if different angle is chosen. --ELEKHH^T 22:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agbogbloshie

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 18:36:38 (UTC)

Reason: Decent quality and very high EV - important and uncommon topic
Articles in which this image appears: Agbogbloshie, Computer recycling, Data erasure, Electronic waste
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: Marlenenapoli

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral I would love to see this topic featured, but this image does not portray it properly. This just happens to show some computer waste, but it otherwise looks like a regular junkyard. There are car parts (doors, tires) and household waste (desk, probably also a refrigerator) present as well and the computer parts make roughly only half of the image. Also, the colorful shed attracts too much attention in an rather dark picture. --Ebertakis (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I find the reasons for opposition in the comment above to be inappropriate. Life on the edge of a garbage heap is not just about recycling computers. This shows how computers are recycled in one situation. It shows how people live and work, in this situation. The topic is not "computer recycling". That is merely one aspect of what is shown here. Amandajm (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The place is notable because it is "known as a destination for legal and illegal exportation and environmental dumping of electronic waste" according to the first sentence of its article. The picture is also used in Computer recycling, Data erasure and Electronic waste. This is why I assumed that the EV lies in "computer recycling" and I thought the picture does a poor job showing this. Thousands of communities around the world are near garbage heaps, and their issues deserve attention, but I didn't get that message because I was looking in the picture for the computers. If the topic is the living conditions then the other picture in the article is much more powerful. Anyway, I switched to neutral because I'm new here, but this is how I saw things. --Ebertakis (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoon Nebula

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 20:35:14 (UTC)

Reason
Articles in which this image appears: Lagoon Nebula and Astrophysical plasma
FP category for this image
Creator: ESO/VPHAS+ team, uploaded by Jmencisom

Support as nominator --ArionEstar (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a reason that this picture is not the main picture for the Lagoon Nebula? They look very different, I am not an expert so cannot say which one is more "real" or if that is even a question to ask... Mattximus (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Paradise Island Royal Towers At Night

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 02:42:04 (UTC)

Reason: Wonderful night shot of a remarkable place
Articles in which this image appears: Atlantis Paradise Island
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: WPPilot

Support as nominator --WPPilot 02:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Not straight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you suggest that I skew it? 'WPPilot (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the photo, in Photo shop the horizon is level, perhaps it is a optical distortion from the aperture and short lens..WPPilot (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at your verticals, not simply the horizon. That being said, the horizon is not exactly straight either, by the looks of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The tilt isn't that concerning to me (I think there's a slight perspective tilt, with buildings leaning inwards due to tilting the camera upwards slightly), but bigger problems for me are that the exposure just isn't very good (would have been better to take it earlier in the evening when there was some residual glow in the sky to fill the shadows with more detail, and to avoid overexposure of the building lighting), and there's an overall softness of the image that I've also noticed in WPPilot's aerial images. Not sure if the same lens was used but it's noticeable to me. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do have (on my computer) other versions of the nominated photo that I took with 4 different lens. I will upload another version after the gym. For the most part my aerial photos are shot now on Leica or Nikon. On Nikon I use prime lenses and I have a lot of them. ECIF on the photo I posted shows it was a wide angle lens (15mm). When doing the aerial photos I am also flying the plane that creates a lot of harmonic vibration, so I could see it resulting in a little "softness" as you referred to it, but that night shot was set on a tripod, with a brand new Nikon D 7100 in aperture priority mode with a remote shutter release. My Lens selections proved me with no more the F1.8 so I have plenty of glass. --WPPilot 15:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)(talk)
You're right that there doesn't seem to be any reasonable explanation for the softness in this image, and yet, there it is. It could be exacerbated by the high(ish) ISO you used. Given you had the camera set up on a tripod, there was no need to bump up the ISO above 100. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It's a fairly good and an interesting photo when viewed in larger size, but at this res. detail is lost. As usual, my suggestion is crop tighter — the dark foreground below the octagonal structure, and the dark or black sky (including left & right sides of frame) add zero visual interest, IMO. Sca (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt., although it could be cropped further on on the right, leaving out the bldg. with the four lights. Sca (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find myself squinting, wishing it was brighter so I can see the details of this building and the grounds. I do like the framing, and the quality is acceptable, but I really believe the night shot is not very encyclopaedic. Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This facility operates 24/7 with its casino and other activities. This view is far more spectacular then the same view, during daylight hours as you can see in the daylight photo taken from the same location. HERE--WPPilot 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)talk

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poecile montanus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:26:43 (UTC)

Reason: High resolution pic of Poecile montanus with clean background. EV because it is a good ID pic of a species that is suffering dramatic population decline across Europe, and esp in Britain, where it is a RSPB 'red status' bird. Shows features that may differentiate it from similar, but more common, Marsh Tit: sooty cap, untidy bib, pale wing panel, larger white cheek, lack of pale patch on upper mandible. Definitive ID obtained from call.
Articles in which this image appears: Willow Tit
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Baresi franco

Support as nominator --Baresi franco (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Though I'm going to have the song stuck in my head all day now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Nice, but one wonders why the background is orange-ish. Autumnal shot? Sca (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. No, not Autumn - it was taken very recently. The background is brick - Accrington Brick, in fact, which is famously orangey-red.--Baresi franco (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as another example - here is the same brick background in a different shot, but this time in bright sunlight, which renders it almost peach-y (what do I know, I'm colour-blind anyway…)--Baresi franco (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Some space was added on the left edge that manipulated the branch. The bird was also selectively sharpened, which, depending on taste, could be deemed excessive. Still within the boundaries allowed by the criteria, I guess --Ebertakis (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I think you're right - I've eased off the sharpening a touch --Baresi franco (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for the Willow tilt, Support for the European Goldfinch (why wasn't it nominated?).--Theparties (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bit of room added on the left made the difference to me. Nice work. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Poecile montanus kleinschmidti.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Torvalds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:51:43 (UTC)

Reason: I was recently involved in a Wikimedia project to visit the European Parliament in Strasbourg and photograph the ~750 Members of Parliament in advance of the upcoming EU Elections. While the vast majority of the images we took are of good technical standard, it wasn't easy to take photos with 'character' as the politicians were often quite stiff and our makeshift 'studio' set up was not really geared towards aesthetics. This photo, of Nils Torvalds, a Finnish politician and coincidentally Linus Torvalds' father, is probably my favourite.
Articles in which this image appears: Nils Torvalds
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, Support. You were part of this? Heck of an experience, I think, although a couple of images were too tightly framed in my opinion (or tightly cropped afterwards). Article needs some serious work, but not part of the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was, and it was an amazing experience! Great team to work with too. Yeah, I share your concerns about the framing, but every time I tried to allow a bit more room, I was encouraged to crop it tighter. Call it peer group pressure. :-) I think the tight crops work well for thumbnails, but viewed at 100%, I agree some can be a little tight. I haven't put together a gallery for my images from Strasbourg, but you can check my recent uploads to Commons here. The vast majority are from the EU Parliament project. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I kinda figured that about the crops. I mean, stuff like File:Salvatore Caronna 01.JPG is way too close. Technically competent, perhaps, and quite useful, but the crop just ruins it. Your recent uploads are awesome. I rather like File:Oreste Rossi MEP 2, Strasbourg 2014 - Diliff.jpg, to be honest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I completely agree, that framing in the Salvatore Caronna photo is far too tight. Also the focus was missed so his facial features are not as sharp as they could be. Nevermind. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is an excellent photo (not that this is particularly surprising from Diliff, one of our best photographers). Also, Crisco, couldn't we just synthesize some more background in at the top in the worst case? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it would be possibly to synthesise some background, but it gets trickier when the crop is tight such that both sides of the jacket/shoulders are already cropped. It's slightly unethical (and also runs the risk of looking weird) if you start to synthesise part of the subject just to widen the framing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't do it, to be quite honest, and the aspect ratio is already a little too vertical IMHO. If it were just blank space, sure, but when we have the subject as well... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, absolutely brilliant picture; I echo the above concerns about the article. Perhaps best to keep it off the MP until at least a few tweaks are made to the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, for those who are interested: my 5 minutes of fame in a French TV news report on our visit. I'm the photographer in most of the video footage, although in actual fact there was a regular rotation of about 10 photographers and a lot of assistants to give everyone a chance to rest and process the images. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image both technically and with some actual character too. Miyagawa (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically very good. -- Colin°^Talk 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Nils Torvalds MEP, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Odin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:54:45 (UTC)

Reason: It's a gorgeous lithograph, high resolution, and completes the set of Odin-class ships. Also, if anyone's wandering about the page title, it's from a Gilbert and Sullivan song about the end of the tall ship era and emergence of ironclads.
Articles in which this image appears: SMS Odin, Odin-class coastal defense ship
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Hugo Graf (1844-1914) [Scan by commons:User:Mr.Nostalgic, restoration by Adam Cuerden.]

Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow. Just wow. Regarding file size, haven't you tried Commons:Chunked uploads with the Upload Wizard on Commons? I've used it to upload files of 300–600 mb in size. Maximum is one gig. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I almost never use the Upload Wizard, but I shall have to for things like this. Uploading, will probably have to jigger filenames after. ETA: I did! Mind you, I have no idea what you're meant to do if you find a problem after the initial upload. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good question. I've never had to do it, but it could be necessary... perhaps you could ping someone at Commons? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - commons:Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Chunked_uploads Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Historically interesting in the manner of SMS Ägir below, which was promoted. (Could be cropped a bit on left, forward of bow, and in foreground. Lose the frame.) Blurb might include note that Odin was built in Danzig, which is now Gdańsk, Poland. If Odin is promoted, suggest running Agir and Odin some weeks apart. Sca (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really reluctant to crop out bits of an artwork, especially as it would make it have a different aspect ratio with other images in the set. Not so concerned about the border, though, except that it's actually kind of a pain to get a clean crop: to get as much of the image as possible into the crop, you usually have to edit out a couple wedges of border. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Talking to the person who's been improving the articles, looks like he likes the borders. Since article use is the FP goal, probably best to go with the bordered version. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Restoration looks sharp and fresh. --Godot13 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, in a large part, that's because it's a very good lithograph, well-reproduced. I can't claim all credit for that. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be a real picture frame to me, just a graphic device imposed digitally. Sca (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely real. Trust me. That gold stuff spread onto the image in places, there were some giant stains on it, and the paper of it had lifted slightly, making it blurry at full resolution in a couple places. I've done my best to mitigate these issues, mostly successfully, I think, though the edges are still a little blurry in a few places at full 105 megapixel resolution. The Ägir one had major, major blurriness on the right hand side, hence why I cut from that one.

That said, I think it might actually be a separate piece of paper to the image itself. It's a common way of mounting an image, including in books. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Adam, the frame adds nothing to the composition. Sca (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the people working on the articles like it, so... um... really not sure what to tell you. We can't promote a version not used in articles, after all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone were to change the one used in the article. (Oops, I said the C-word!) Sca (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, but I don't think we're engaged in a currently-fairly-successful project to bring all articles on these ships up to Featured Article status, so a little bit of deferring is appropriate, I think. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mag sein. German Wiki uses a different image without a border, but it's not nearly as good as the one you nominated. (Oddly enough, our pic seems to show only one funnel, whereas the Ger. pic, from a period postcard, shows two — ??) Sca (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the ship was rebuilt in 1901-1903 (lead of SMS Odin); that may be one of the changes. From the dates on the signature of the other illustrations in this set, the one nominated here is almost certainly from about 1899. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Odin was built with only one funnel and had a second one added during the 1901-03 reconstruction to match Ägir. I'll have to include that detail when I go back through and expand the article (though that will be some time from now, as these come first). And for what it's worth, I do like the border, if only for the extra bit of color it adds to otherwise generally drab articles. But I'm not wedded to it or anything if consensus favors no border. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting — Usually it's the other way around, fewer funnels r.t. more. Sca (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, yes, but when the new boilers were installed, they doubled the number from 4 to 8, thus you need another funnel for good ventilation. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this is by far the best frame out of the ones I've seen, I'm slightly concerned that we've cropped the frames out of the other two. If these images were ever to be presented as a set at a later point, the frame would stand out conspicuously. I'm not saying "remove it", but it might be a good idea to have a non-frame version for use in a gallery on the artist's page, should Hugo Graf ever get an article. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll prepare one, but until these are a coherent set, it probably doesn't matter. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent work, I'd support a version without a border more but the image is stunning as is. Miyagawa (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed that one without a border would be better, but that's a quibble, it's a wonderful image. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:S.M. Küstenpanzerschiff Odin im Salut - restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voltairine de Cleyre

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 16:36:15 (UTC)

Reason: An image easily on par with the one of the same subject probably about to be featured. Multiple featuring of the same subject is not without precedent, such as the two we have of Ronald Reagan.
Articles in which this image appears: Voltairine de Cleyre
FP category for this image: People/political
Creator: Unknown

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Multiple featured pictures of the same subject should really show something very different about the same subject. I'm not convinced that there's much to be said in favour of multiple portraits of the same person unless the portraits themselves are notable, they show the subject at different times in their lives or some such. I'm not convinced that this is the case here. At some point, a decision has been made to use the other image rather than this one to lead the article- that says a lot. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the (almost certain to pass) image below is considerably more interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, some better documentation would help with this. For example, File:Cleyere.jpg - clearly the same image - gives the year of this as 1891 (as does the caption at Voltairine de Cleyre, which, frankly, is quite a bit more believable than 1900: she does look quite a bit more than a mere one year younger in this than in the other image. It also explains the photography a bit, this is a pretty good and typical photo style for the early 1890s. Probably meant either for a book or as a calling card. If we knew how this image was used, that documentation would probably be enough to distinguish it a bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First JATO assisted flight

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 01:48:13 (UTC)

Reason: I feel guilty, as if my lengthy delay in restoring the image caused the previous nomination to go bottoms up. Decent quality for the age and candidness, EV is quite high.
Articles in which this image appears: JATO, Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory, Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer), ERCO Ercoupe
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: Unknown, restoration by Chris Woodrich

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- JJARichardson (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice restoration of an image of a historical event. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High EV - Godot13 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:First JATO assisted Flight - GPN-2000-001538.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Can Races Newport Beach California

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 06:02:19 (UTC)

Reason: 4k super clear aerial photo shot on "RED: Epic Dragon" of larger sailing yachts racing up a narrow channel in Newport Beach, California. Super rare view and perspective as this airspace is directly in the departure path of commercial traffic. To the right is the end of Lido Isle, on the left is Dover Shores and the former home of John Wayne at the top.
Articles in which this image appears: Beer Can Races & Newport Beach, California
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: WPPilot

Support as nominator --WPPilot 06:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose It's hard to see what's going on in this image: it depicts a channel with some tiny boats in it which aren't clearly racing one another (one of them is heading in entirely the wrong direction). There's nothing that grabs the viewer's attention. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are 40 to 50 foot racing sailing boats. In sailing you can not sail into the wind and that boat that is "Going the wrong direction" is tacking so it does not hit the parked boats... You must not sail, look for a Beer Can Race near you to learn how... :) If you look at the article linked it will give more to work with. A link to the tiny boats is HERE--WPPilot 04:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)talk

Oppose sharpness is lacking. At this distance a 4k shot of such small objects is unlikely to be good enough. --Pine^✉ 20:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carduelis carduelis

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 06:45:17 (UTC)

Reason: High quality
Articles in which this image appears: European goldfinch
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: Baresi franco

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose file was added to the article only today (needs at least 7 days in the article), and it replaced an already existing FP, which has much better EV and composition: File:Carcar.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Tomer. Replacing leading image of the article (which is also a featured pic) and immediately nominating the pic cannot be supported. There is no hurry to nominate Godhulii 1985 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful Aerial photo of Bay Island in Newport Beach, California

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 06:48:43 (UTC)

Reason: Everyone dream home.
Articles in which this image appears: Bay Island, California
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: WPPilot

Support as nominator --WPPilot 06:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The composition isn't great (the island doesn't really stand out here), and there's an obvious smudge on the upper-left corner and what might be another smudge on the upper right corner. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agreeing with Nick-D about the upper left corner. Also, sharpness is lacking. --Pine^✉ 20:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Fruit Stand

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 08:01:55 (UTC)

Reason: Historical photo of an immigrant community in California by famed photographer Dorothy Lange
Articles in which this image appears: San Lorenzo, California, History of Asian Americans
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
Creator: Dorothy Lange

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems like an image with low EV. Tomer T (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Church

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 19:08:16 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and good quality, very sharp
Articles in which this image appears: Sofia Church, List of churches in Stockholm
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: ArildV

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —P. S. Burton (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WPPilot (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a little disappointed by the rather weak article. I've asked if someone may be up for working on improving it. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I would support this fine photo of an unusual-style church, but our article consists of only one paragraph. Even the Swedish WP article is quite short at 275 words,[3] but perhaps someone could translate it? Sca (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although I note with dismay that the tree is covering up part of the church. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also looks slightly skewed to right. Sca (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ///EuroCarGT 02:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support like it Godhulii 1985 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sofia kyrka January 2013.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Lima

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 19:18:53 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Fernanda Lima
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Alex Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hhmmmmmmmm. --Theparties (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support - As it stand today, the entire article is pretty much that image; There is just one sentence on that page "Fernanda Lima is a Brazilian actress, model and television hostess.". I can't accept that. For an article about an actress who appears to have been in almost 20 shows/films, we can't get even a half-baked biography? --CyberXRef^☎ 01:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can work on it if you want.--Theparties (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of the criteria. The article is entirely fixable, and if it's not done before time for this to be shown on the MP, then it can go to WP:POTD/Unused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret criteria 5 & 6 as having somewhat a strong cohesiveness between the article and the image that's aiding it - included in 1+ articles, verifiable, supported by facts in the article. I don't really consider articles that are pretty much empty as real articles. Note that I've changed my vote to support since Theparties did an amazing job improving that article. (realistically speaking I was just looking for more than one sentence.) --CyberXRef^☎ 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm done.--Theparties (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great job, Theparties! Tomer T (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :). --Theparties (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work with the lighting, color combinations & composition WPPilot 07:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC) (talk)
Support. Great stuff- really nice work on the expansion. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — ZZZzzzz. Sca (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What did you expect her to do? Jump in the place? Tomer T (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I think Sca doesn't like any posed portraits and would only support a candid one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, I liked Ben Franklin on the $100 bill when I saw one once. But Fernanda's outfit is too flashy for my taste. (Are those slacks fluorescent?) Sca (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it was the aesthetic value of the portrait, I dare say. Yes, admittedly a little flashy, but then... so is much of Brazilian urban fashion, from what little I've seen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, waiting for Adriana Lima as well... Brandmeister^talk 09:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice Godhulii 1985 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Fernanda Lima in 2012.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton picker

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 20:55:58 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality, high EV, impressive image, nice composition
Articles in which this image appears: Cotton picker, John Deere, Mechanised agriculture
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Land
Creator: David Nance, USDA ARS

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding encyclopaedic value. --ELEKHH^T 05:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This strikes me as being decidedly too bright. The original version (see upload history) was probably too dark, but it was taken too far in the opposite direction by the rebalanced. It also feels fuzzy to me, although that could be because the image is a decade old. Places where I'd expect the image to be crisp just aren't all that crisp. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I hafta ask, what's interesting about it? It doesn't really illustrate operation of the machine. Sca (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is too hard to display the machine's operation in a single photo, unless it is shown cut in half. I'm personally torn with this one, because it has nice composition and a beautiful sky, but it is grainy and the increased contrast of the nominated version makes the light look harsh. --Ebertakis (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 02:48:01 (UTC)

Reason: Knowing this was the subject of a current featured article candidate, I couldn't resist helping out with a restoration of the lead image. It's not quite as good of a scan as Odin, but it's still a 105 megapixel scan, so there's quite sufficient quality. PNG will go up after any comments are dealt with.
Articles in which this image appears: SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm +1
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Hugo Graf (1844-1914) [Scan by commons:User:Mr.Nostalgic, restoration by Adam Cuerden.]

Support either as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll make a borderless version of this one tomorrow. The border's a lot more worn on this one, so I think it's more of a candidate for a crop. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that losing the border may be best here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also that the border needs to go. Officially no vote at the moment, as I don't vote on versions I haven't seen yet, and I'd likely oppose the current version if I had to make a choice. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 03:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Alt. 1 (sans frame). Much better, meiner Meinung. Sca (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Alt. 1 Really lovely work, but I think the image works better without the frame/border. Miyagawa (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt. 1, much better in appearance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:S.M. Linienschiff Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm - restoration, border removed.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kite experiment

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 03:25:44 (UTC)

Reason: A Bald Eagle swooned over the canvas, giving birth to an electric celebration of red white and blue, as Uncle Sam stuck his middle finger up at Zeus above, and Ben Franklin (surrounded by angels, because why not) tamed the Greek god with but a string, a key, and a kite. Erm, what? This isn't a comedy website? I mean, this image is of high resolution, by a notable artist, and is solid testament to the quasi-legendary status of the topic and subject.
Articles in which this image appears: Kite experiment, +2
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History
Creator: Benjamin West

Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tepid support — Interesting, but Ben doesn't seem readily recognizable compared with more familiar images, such as that on the United States one hundred-dollar bill — Not that I see many of those! Sca (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't angels; they're putti. 24.52.103.154 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is significant damage here; this would need restoration for me to consider a support. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 05:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant damage to the scan, or the painting? As this is not being nominated with an article on the painting, that oppose is (somewhat) justifiable, but if an article were written on the painting itself (entirely possible) I don't think such a rationale would be acceptable (digital restoration would be misrepresentative of the painting). — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  - When I first wrote this, I meant restoration as in digital restoration, but looking again, it would have to be a restoration to the work itself, with actual paint. While this is not at all unheard of, it doesn't seem likely to happen.

I personally don't see much of a difference between digitally removing cracks from a painting and digitally removing other types of damage, which we accept as routine here. Look, for example at this Featured picture and the image it came from. A crack was removed in that, and it also had a stain removed and a good deal of age discoloration reversed. Ultimately, if a restoration results in an image of what the work looked like when it was first created, I don't see that as a misrepresentation. It would not be what the work looks like today, but what the work looks like now is itself a misrepresentation, just a more traditionally accepted one. Such issues are, I suppose, something that we will have to work out as digital editing software becomes more and more powerful.

All that being said, looking at this again, I feel that the damage is so great that a digital restoration might be impossible. As such, I don't see any scenario (aside from the painting itself being restored and rescanned), in which I could support this work as an FP. Is this a high quality scan that is faithful to the painting as it exists today? Yes. Is it Wikipedia's best work? No, the damage precludes that. I suspect that this is a highly controversial opinion, but it is the opinion that I hold. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 08:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference, in my opinion, is that the photographs promoted are generally (not always, but generally) photographic representations of objects or persons, rather than photographs as photographs or as notable works of art (and even then very few are only known from one print, unlike paintings). The one you link to was promoted for its representation of an event in the history of submarines, whereas something like the Nautilus, whereas the admittedly yellowed File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg was promoted as an accurate reproduction of a painting as a painting/work of art, one of which there is only one. The sitter is not the source of encyclopedic value; it is the entire canvas, and changing that canvas in any way would misrepresent the object. Anyways, that's neither here nor there for this nomination, and I recognize that we are unlikely to agree on this point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per nominator :) This belongs in the Museum of Bad Art. There's little encyclopedic value that this image adds to Kite experiment, I don't think this can be featured unless in an article about the painting. - hahnch e n 16:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Sawfish at Atlantis Paradise Island

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 07:48:42 (UTC)

Reason: Underwater high def close up of a rare Sawfish in a breeding tank at Atlantis Paradise Island
Articles in which this image appears: Sawfish & Atlantis Paradise Island
FP category for this image: link to category (listed on the WP:FP page) that best describes the image
Creator: WPPilot

Support as nominator --WPPilot 07:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, but although it is a useful image, the composition and quality aren't FP worthy. Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very cool creature, but unfortunately this is not an encyclopaedic photograph as it does not present a good representation of the animal itself due to poor composition and quality. I have replaced the main image of sawtooth with one that shows the whole animal, to get a better idea of the shape. Mattximus (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Agree with the two preceding comments. Sca (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agreed that this is, alas, not a FP-quality image. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senegalese wrestling

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 17:30:22 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and high EV. Commons FP.
Articles in which this image appears: Senegalese wrestling
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator: Pierre-Yves Beaudouin

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very dynamic sports image. One of the best ones I've seen in many ways. The poses pull you in quickly, composition is good, and, since the faces can't be seen, but the image still has a lot of interest, it makes a good universal image for the sport. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to ask.... Is the guy on the right urinating?! There's a stream of what looks like liquid coming from his crotch - too much to be dripping sweat. It's a little off-putting for what would otherwise be an excellent sports photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it a seam in the billboard behind him? Sca (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you can follow it all the way into the sand. I really think we've got some inadvertent bladder control issues in the photo. Should we be featuring something potentially embarrassing like that? Hmm. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. He is not urinating. It's a sewing thread, from his clothes. You can see it easier on File:Lutte sénégalaise Bercy 2013 - Mame Balla-Pape Mor Lô - 31.jpg taken 16 seconds before. Thx for reviewing my picture. Pyb (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, thanks for confirming! That makes sense, and it's a good example of why it's better to ask the photographer than to make assumptions. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ///EuroCarGT 02:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now that the mysterious line between the wrestler's legs has an explanation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one fine photograph, pulling you right in. --CyberXRef^☎ 20:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lutte sénégalaise Bercy 2013 - Mame Balla-Pape Mor Lô - 32.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayon (Space)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 21:16:53 (UTC)

Reason: High quality
Articles in which this image appears: Mayon Volcano
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines (Satellite)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 21:16:56 (UTC)

Reason: High quality
Articles in which this image appears: Outline of the Philippines
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query, are there other similar images that don't have the sun-glare on the ocean on the eastern part of the image? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestl, if I found anything better, I would have nominated that one.--Theparties (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The night/day line is needlessly distracting unfortunately. Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mars rovers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 08:54:25 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and very high EV. Commons FP. Text taken from Curiosity (rover).
Articles in which this image appears: Rover (space exploration), Mars rover, Curiosity (rover)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A unique image showing the size and shape of the three NASA rovers in relation to each other and a human for scale. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a very nice photo that puts the evolution of the rovers into prospective. I do have one question, is there a reason why we left out, Matthew Robinson and Wesley Kuykendall, the names of the two JPL engineers? --CyberXRef^☎ 11:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Names added. Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Useful excellent quality image. --Carioca (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 02:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High EV. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I am with Ðiliff. -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Brilliant, educational, and historically important. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:PIA15279 3rovers-stand D2011 1215 D521.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panmure Island

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 02:18:51 (UTC)

Reason: High quality, very detailed and adds significant value to Prince Edward Island and Panmure Island (Prince Edward Island)
Articles in which this image appears: Prince Edward Island and Panmure Island (Prince Edward Island)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Others and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
Creator: Chensiyuan

Support as nominator --///EuroCarGT 02:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ditto. Looks plastic. Sca (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Dunham's tattoo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 07:10:10 (UTC)

Reason: She's a very interesting and controversial person, and this is the better photo out of the two in her article
Articles in which this image appears: Lena Dunham, Supporting Characters
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: David Shankbone

Support as nominator --Theparties (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lighting is too harsh, background is distracting. Also, noisy. Very, very, very, very noisy. I'm not very good with portraits yet, but I suspect shooting at f/5 or f/4 would have helped the presentation a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Crisco. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Nothing against Ms. Dunham, about whom I know nothing, but her tattoo isn't mentioned in Lena Dunham except in the cutline accompanying this photo. Sca (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A nice subject, but...well, the only way I can describe the picture is "run of the mill". There's nothing outstanding here that makes me think it should be Featured. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Brando, The Wild One promotional photo

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 17:45:29 (UTC)

File:Marlon Brando - The Wild One.jpg

Original – Promotional photo of Marlon Brando for The Wild One (1953)

Reason: Unique high quality portrait with no apparent technical flaws.
Articles in which this image appears: Marlon Brando, The Wild One, 2004, Black
FP category for this image: People/Entertainment
Creator: Columbia Pictures

Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have two issues with this. First of all, the lighting seems off to me. The center of his face is well lit, but the left side of his face is poorly lit. The light pointing on the wall off to the left side of his head makes it seem like the light source itself is to his left, which makes unlit the left side of his face is feel, as I said, off. (Note that I'm talking his left, our right facing the image). The other thing that bothers me is how out of focus half of the collar is. I can understand the arm being out of focus, but not the collar; it's too close to the face for it to be that blurry. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 23:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The collar is in the correct amount of focus for the image. The plane of focus is almost directly on his eyes (if I had to guess, I would say it is directly on the tip of his nose); the front of the collar extends into its depth as it reaches forward. By contrast, the back edge of the collar is behind his head. If you want a reference as to how shallow the DOF for this image is, look at his left ear-it's out of focus but scarcely more than 2 inches back. The shallow plane here is obviously deliberate; focussing an image this precisely is not easy. Likewise, others noted that the the lighting is artificial, or at least counter-intuitive (in a world that typically has one light source-the sun), but this is hardly unexpected as it is a studio shot, and likely not purposeless either (it highlights the gleam of his jacket, puts an ambiguous shadow over his face, sharpens his features) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't a lot of that kind of the point? The movie is called "The Wild One", the lighting will be meant to be a little disturbing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Yeah, the lighting is very artificial-looking. Sca (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a fine picture, but I wouldn't put it over the FP bar. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone know that all good art is evenly lit and in perfect focus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a false argument, LuckyLouie. "The lighting choice was deliberate" is not mutually exclusive with "the lighting choice was poorly executed". In just about every image I looked at in Chiaroscuro, there was a single point of origin for the light, and the light and shadow logically followed from that point. In this image, there appears to be two points of origin for the light, and so the shadow does not appear to logically follow the light source. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 19:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this historical and unique image (unless WP:FP? specifies that light in images must have a single point of origin and shadows must logically follow the light source.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the light looks a bit weird by our modern standards, but who cares? It makes a dramatic shot that is otherwise a very good portrait. --Ebertakis (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Has someone actually verified that this was not renewed? (I mean, opened up the renewals list?). We've already lost one FP to a deletion based on there being no confirmation that the image lacked a notice, and I'm not letting it happen again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Kaiserin Augusta leaving New York

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 02:20:14 (UTC)

Reason: And now for something completely different! But not yet! This is both a good image of the ship, a rather attractive background, and a nice example of the author's work (I think it's the only really good one we have, really). It has a lot of artistic merit as well, in my opinion.
Articles in which this image appears: SMS Kaiserin Augusta, Carl Saltzmann
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water
Creator: Carl Saltzmann (scan by commons:User:Mr.Nostalgic, restoration by Adam Cuerden)

Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously. And knowing Parsecboy, once he really buckles down on the article, we'll have FPs in FAs, and later FPs in FAs in an FT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work as with the others, and the image has an interesting composition too. Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing scan and restoration, good quality and large resolution. --///EuroCarGT 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I don't like this one as well as the other two because the composition is full of distractions or 'noise.' Too much going on! (It would be better without the hokey beams from Miss Liberty's lamp.) Sca (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an illustration of its period, although somewhat ahead of its time - you see a lot of this sort of thing about two decades later. In any case, it illustrates the artist well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both a fine image of the ship and a stunning example of the art style. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Kaiserin Augusta verlässt Newyork, Chromo-Lithographie von C. Saltzmann 95, nr13 aus G. Wislicenus, Unsre Kriegsflotte - restored, borderless.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B-25 Mitchell Production

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 23:00:35 (UTC)

Reason: Technically excellent, historic, irreplaceable, high encyclopedic value. Clearly illustrates the condition and appearance of an aircraft factory in World War II, as well as the use of zinc chromate to prevent corrosion.
Articles in which this image appears: North American B-25 Mitchell, Zinc chromate,
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
Creator: Alfred T. Palmer; Derivative work including grading, distortion correction, minor local adjustments and rendering from tiff-file: user:Julian Herzog

Support as nominator --dllu (t,c) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note This picture (although unrestored) is already a featured picture, see: File:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not see the existing featured picture. I'd change this to a delist and replace nomination, but I'm not too sure how to. dllu (t,c) 10:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best would be, that you initiate the delist & replace nomination on another subpage, and then withdraw this one. (The current FP is BTW not used in any articles.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw -- see delist-and-replace nomination at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/B-25 Mitchell Production. dllu (t,c) 18:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stereum ostrea

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 17:56:26 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and high EV
Articles in which this image appears: Stereum ostrea
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi
Creator: NorbertNagel

Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. --Ebertakis (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I think that File:Stereum ostrea (False Turkey-tail Fungus).jpg does a better job of capturing the detail of the "golden curtain", this is better form a composition standpoint. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Theparties (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a very fine image. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice image. --Carioca (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks perfect. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --///EuroCarGT 03:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin°^Talk 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Was any microscopy done to confirm this ID? Stereum ostrea is not distinguishable from the widely distributed Stereum hirsutum (also known as the "false turkey tail") without micro work. Sasata (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating further, I'm not sure this species is even found in Europe. I have Courtecuisses's (1999) Mushrooms of Britain and Europe, Laessoe's (2002) Mushrooms (which describes European species) and Gruenert & Reid's (1995) Field Guide to Mushrooms of Britain and Europe, and none of them mention this species, but they all have S. hirsutum. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not distinguishable without micro work, does it really reduce from the EV? Anyways if it was the other species the picture would have looked the same. By the way, the article may need some work, because it mentions this species as "false turkey-tail". Tomer T (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a picturesque example of the S. hirsutum–S. ostrea species complex, but it's misleading to pass it off as the latter when we're not even sure if that species is found in the location where the picture was taken! Sasata (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, per Sasata. I suggest that this nomination is put on hold until we have worked this out. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:False turkey-tail - Stereum hirsutum - 02.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this should be an FP is clear. However, this should not run on the MP until identification is certain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File has been renamed to Stereum hirsutum and image has been moved from the S. ostrea article. Julia\^talk 17:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Garfield

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 14:12:00 (UTC)

Reason: HQ & EV
Articles in which this image appears: James Abram Garfield
FP category for this image
Creator: Unknown; part of Brady-Handy Photograph Collection.

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The restoration of the background looks very unnatural for this sort of photo - it looks like someone just threw a blur on it and said "done". There's still a fair bit of damage left, as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]