Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates
Skip to: |
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words", the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria.
If you believe an image should be featured, create a subpage (use the "For Nominations" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. For promotion, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. All users may comment. However, only those who have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and with at least 100 edits will be included in the numerical count. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nominations started in December are given three extra days, due to the holidays slowing down activity here. The archive contains all opinions and comments collected for candidate nominations and their nomination results. If you nominate an image here, please consider also uploading and nominating it at Commons to help ensure that the pictures can be used not just in the English Wikipedia but on all other Wikimedia projects as well.
A featured picture can be nominated for delisting if you feel it no longer lives up to featured picture standards. You may also request a featured picture be replaced with a superior image. Create a subpage (use the "For Delists" field, below) and add the subpage to the current nominations section. Please leave a note on the talk page of the original FPC nominator (and creator/uploader, if appropriate) to let them know the delisting is being debated. The user may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture. For delisting, if an image is listed here for ten days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support, including the nominator. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures, except that:If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted. If it is added to articles during the nomination, at least one week's stability is required for the nomination to be closed as "Kept". The nomination may be suspended if a week hasn't yet passed to give the rescue a chance. Outside of the nominator, all voters are expected to have been on Wikipedia for 25 days and to have made a minimum of 100 edits. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. As with regular nominations, delist nominations are given three extra days to run if started in December.
|
Featured picture tools: |
Step 1:
Evaluate Evaluate the merit of a nomination against the featured picture criteria. Most users reference terms from this page when evaluating nominations. |
Step 2:
Create a subpage
To create a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for your nomination, add a title for the image you want to nominate in the field below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Labrador Retriever) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
To create a subpage for your delist, add a title for the image you want to delist/replace in the field below and click the "Create new delist nomination" button.
|
Step 3:
Transclude and link Transclude the newly created subpage to the Featured picture candidate list ( ). |
How to comment for Candidate Images
How to comment for Delist Images
Editing candidates
Is my monitor adjusted correctly? In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. Displays also differ greatly in their ability to show highlight detail. There are light grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display highlight detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings (probably reduce the contrast setting). Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal highlight detail. Please take this into account when voting. On a gamma-adjusted display, the four circles in the color image blend into the background when seen from a few feet (roughly 75–150 cm) away. If they do not, you could adjust the gamma setting (found in the computer's settings, not on the display), until they do. This may be very difficult to attain, and a slight error is not detrimental. Uncorrected PC displays usually show the circles darker than the background. Note that the image must be viewed in original size (263 × 68 pixels) - if enlarged or reduced, results are not accurate. Note that on most consumer LCD displays (laptop or flat screen), viewing angle strongly affects these images. Correct adjustment on one part of the screen might be incorrect on another part for a stationary head position. Click on the images for more technical information. If possible, calibration with a hardware monitor calibrator is recommended. |
- To see recent changes, .
FPCs needing feedback
|
---|
Current nominations
[edit]Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2024 at 13:36:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- High EV, a very rare image of an extremely violent weather event, one of the higest-quality images I've ever seen of a tornado overall. FP on Commons, Indonesian Wiki and Turkish Wiki. Used in 70 pages just on the English Wikipedia.
- Articles in which this image appears
- 2007 Elie tornado, Tornado, Atmospheric convection, Climate of Manitoba, Elie, Manitoba, From This Place, List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks (since 2001), List of tornadoes by province (Canada), Outline of Manitoba, Severe weather, Thunderstorm +60 more
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
- Creator
- Justin1569
- Support as nominator – SirMemeGod 13:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Moonreach (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2024 at 08:59:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- Infobox image of Blue-throated barbet. Recent FP on Commons, unanimously promoted in 5 days.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Blue-throated barbet; Megalaimidae; + 9 other language Wikipedias
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Tagooty
- Support as nominator – Tagooty (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2024 at 20:57:30 (UTC)
- Reason
- No single cover can fully encapsulate pulp magazines, but this one has a lot of good stuff: A spaceman with a jetpack and a raygun carrying an improbably dressed woman, while in the background some kind of futuristic machine explodes. The scan quality is good, and captures the halftone printing dots, which are functionally the resolution limit of the source image. I did a light crop to remove a white line on the right side, but I don't want to get too crop-happy, since this is a time-worn physical object and has somewhat uneven edges because of it.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Pulp magazine, Ray Cummings
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations
- Creator
- Albert Drake, whose signature in the lower left corner unfortunately has the Fiction House roundel printed squarely over the top of it
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – EV? – Sca (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2024 at 19:48:50 (UTC)
- Reason
- Has anyone ever tried a 3D model nomination here? I haven't seen one, and I figured 3DBenchy would be a worthy attempt. 3DBenchy is a calibration object designed to stress test 3D printers. It is open-source and (in certain circles) quite famous. If you prefer to grade it purely as an image, the largest 2D preview is well over the minimum pixel count and the underlying file is almost 11 MB.
- Articles in which this image appears
- 3DBenchy
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other or
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others - Creator
- Daniel Norée & Paulo Kiefe (by Creative Tools Sweden AB)
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – I think this is going to be a tough sell based on how poorly mediawiki renders previews of STL files, but if we were going to feature an STL file either this or File:Utah teapot (solid).stl would be good candidates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- A thought crossed my mind that what we really need is a wiki project called Featured Multimedia, which could handle all the file types that aren't images (and perhaps videos, since Featured Pictures has a prior claim on those). I discovered there was Wikipedia:Featured sounds, but it's been dormant since 2011. That catalog would make a good starting point for Featured Multimedia. Moonreach (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - edges are a pixel mess! The teapot is clean, would support that. --Janke | Talk 07:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – If we're going to start allowing 3D models into FP, then we may aswell rename it from Featured Pictures to Featured Media ―Howard • 🌽33 08:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - As stated, I can count the pixels, especially at the edges of the shadows. SirMemeGod 12:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2024 at 13:48:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- Striking, extremely high resolution image of Josephine Baker in a style contemporary to her heyday. Featured picture on Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Josephine Baker, kiss curl, laid edges, Donyale Luna
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others or
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment - Creator
- Jean Chassaing
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Cool graphics. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Nice! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Janke | Talk 07:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2024 at 23:34:49 (UTC)
- Reason
- Quality image of Hurricane Milton at its peak intensity (Category 5) over the Gulf of Mexico in October 2024. We have very few hurricane FPs that show the curvature of Earth. This shows it and I think that's a plus. This was shot from the International Space Station. The control arm on top helps establish the viewing angle/location. The image is noisy, but I think the high pixel count more or less makes up for it.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Hurricane Milton
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
- Creator
- NASA/Michael Barratt
- Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Underwhelming, IMO. Meh. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support – The problem with taking pictures out the window of the ISS is the same as with taking them out the window of an airplane; there's always going to be at least a little schmutz and optical interference from the glass. That said, I think the hurricane itself looks pretty good. Moonreach (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2024 at 20:20:05 (UTC)
- Reason
- notable photograph, high quality and resolution
- Articles in which this image appears
- Monolith, the Face of Half Dome, Ansel Adams, Half Dome
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Ansel Adams
- Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm seeing significant banding in the sky, and JPG artefacting is pretty bad. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: Yes, right. That version can't be corrected, but I found other versions, of higher resolution and less compression. Tell me what do you think. Yann (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think this version crosses the bar. Wild that the falling snow is visible — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose — I'm sorry, but this is another one where you can count the pixels up close. I'd support a higher-resolution copy of the same photo, though. Moonreach (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Moonreach: The last version is nearly 23 Mpx, which pretty big for an old picture, and bigger than most FP. Yann (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about the file size. It's that, when I look at the largest version at 100% scaling, I can see individual pixels. I think this was upscaled at some point. Moonreach (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Moonreach: I see what you mean. I downscaled it a bit. @Crisco 1492: Still OK for you? Yann (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann I'm not sure you downscaled it enough. The pixels in the image appear to be somewhere between 2x2 and 3x3. I'd think you'd want to reduce it to at least 50% it's original size (something like 2048x2800). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann I'm not sure you downscaled it enough. The pixels in the image appear to be somewhere between 2x2 and 3x3. I'd think you'd want to reduce it to at least 50% it's original size (something like 2048x2800). --Ahecht (TALK
- @Moonreach: OK, I found another version: no banding, sharper, and more details in the dark area. Hopefully, that's the good one. Yann (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Moonreach: I see what you mean. I downscaled it a bit. @Crisco 1492: Still OK for you? Yann (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Moonreach: The last version is nearly 23 Mpx, which pretty big for an old picture, and bigger than most FP. Yann (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2024 at 18:53:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good depiction of cytoplasmic streaming, in this case streaming in onion epidermal cells. Onion cells are typically 200 x 40 microns in size.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cytoplasmic streaming
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- Heiti Paves
- Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – ZZZ'S 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Moonreach (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2024 at 11:08:14 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unanimously featured on Commons two weeks ago. Headline image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Eurasian chaffinch
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Caroline Legg
- Support as nominator – MER-C 11:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – ZZZ'S 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support High quality, good EV --Tagooty (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2024 at 10:44:42 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unanimously featured on Commons two weeks ago. Headline image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ganges Delta, Ganges
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back
- Creator
- Copernicus Programme
- Support as nominator – MER-C 10:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – ZZZ'S 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – individual pixels quite clear at full magnification. Moonreach (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – The far left side is unsharp and pixelated, as if the pixels are misaligned. Bammesk (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 17:11:33 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is the largest (and maybe even sharpest) image ever taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. High EV because it shows the star density of the Andromeda Galaxy, and an absolutely amazing image overall. Very surprised it hasn't been nominated yet.
There's a 0.7 gigabyte version (File:Andromeda Galaxy M31 - Heic1502a Full resolution.tiff), but that one isn't transcluded anywhere and is so big that it needs to be downloaded to open.Thanks to Chris Woodrich, we now have the full-sized, 1.5 billion-pixel image. - Articles in which this image appears
- Zooming in on the Andromeda Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy, Andromeda (constellation)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Panorama
- Creator
- NASA
- Support (ALT1) as nominator – SirMemeGod 17:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Support.My God, it's full of stars! Moonreach (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)- Support alt 1, even better! – Moonreach (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Let's not jump the gun... this isn't 2015 anymore, and we can get the full resolution. I'm using the upload Wizard right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- That would be marvelous. SirMemeGod 18:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 - Huge image, excellent quality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 – Yann (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure all those small dots filling the background are noise, not stars. It's measurement or detection noise, somewhat similar to high ISO noise (but more intense). The image has scientific value even with all that noise, because lots of tiny stars are still discernible (perhaps for first time ever) within the noise, though not easily. However, for a galaxy photo in an encyclopedia, the excessive noise misleads, coming across as stars. It's just too noisy IMO.
-Oppose.Bammesk (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: From what I've gathered from HubbleSite and overall specifications for the Hubble, those objects are more likely than not individual astronomical bodies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey did a similar look at the Milky Way's center, and it looks exactly the same when zoomed in. The link Chris posted actually sums it up really well. SirMemeGod 12:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- This confirms it.
"Though the galaxy is over 2 million light-years away, The Hubble Space Telescope is powerful enough to resolve individual stars in a 61,000-light-year-long stretch of the galaxy’s pancake-shaped disk. It's like photographing a beach and resolving individual grains of sand. And there are lots of stars in this sweeping view -- over 100 million, with some of them in thousands of star clusters seen embedded in the disk."
SirMemeGod 13:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- This confirms it.
- As per the ESA, there are more than one hundred million stars in the image. I don't know if they are counting all of the stars in the spiral galaxies and other multi-star features in the image (some are highlighted here), but based on available sources that doesn't appear to be noise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I struck my vote. Reading This, linked above, helped. Thanks to both for the replies. I am still curious and a bit skeptical. The image has its own en-Wiki article, that's something. Bammesk (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: From what I've gathered from HubbleSite and overall specifications for the Hubble, those objects are more likely than not individual astronomical bodies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey did a similar look at the Milky Way's center, and it looks exactly the same when zoomed in. The link Chris posted actually sums it up really well. SirMemeGod 12:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 – --Janke | Talk 17:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 – ZZZ'S 06:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support alt 1. MER-C 10:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 15:43:55 (UTC)
- Reason
- notable historical image with its own article, restored
- Articles in which this image appears
- Wait for Me, Daddy, Claude P. Dettloff, British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own), Military history of Canada, History of British Columbia, October 1940
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
- Creator
- Claude P. Dettloff
- Support as nominator – It was heavily damaged. Apparently the print was scratched with a sharp tool. All copies on the Net have the same defect. Yann (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Focus is off, but when the image has its own article, that doesn't matter. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - SirMemeGod 17:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support; very good choice! Wait for me, daddy (1940) is an influential and a famous photo. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Carlosmarkos2345 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Moonreach (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 15:13:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- Excellent copy of a visually striking poster for a well-known horror film. Target article has GA status. There were attempts to promote this image twice before, but those were over a decade ago and had low community input. Criticisms at the time included slight flaws (which were then fixed in a restoration pass) and aesthetic opinions of the poster itself. I don't think either of those is a definitive "no", especially with so few votes, so I wanted to try again.
- Articles in which this image appears
- White Zombie (film)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
- Creator
- Unknown, possibly employee(s) of United Artists, restored by Crisco 1492
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per the previous nominations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – @Chris Woodrich, Yann – I didn't catch this before, but this version of the poster is cropped from a version with a wide white border, as can be seen in the prior version. It seems like the only thing that was lost was a notice that said "Printed in U. S. A.", but the border didn't really have anything wrong with it, either. Do you prefer the current, cropped version or the version with the border? Moonreach (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer the one with the white border, as that was how posters were made at the time. Only thing is we may end up with edit warriors who prefer the non-bordered version. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Moonreach (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd blame autocorrect, but I was on PC. Just worried that someone may revert war. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm unclear on the procedure for marking things as derivatives when uploading modified files, but if you uploaded your last version of the poster as a new file and proposed it as an alt then we'd have both and people could choose. Moonreach (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd blame autocorrect, but I was on PC. Just worried that someone may revert war. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Moonreach (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer the one with the white border, as that was how posters were made at the time. Only thing is we may end up with edit warriors who prefer the non-bordered version. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fine with or without the border. It doesn't matter much to me. Yann (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Silly stuff. Meh. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I would support a version with the border, but I'm less keen on the edited version. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)- I too would support a version with the original border. Borders are common when it comes to movie posters. Bammesk (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Josh Milburn and Bammesk. Based on the consensus here, I have reverted to the bordered version. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support the (original) bordered version. Bammesk (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support the version with the border. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also support the version with the border. Moonreach (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2024 at 01:38:34 (UTC)
- Reason
- Quality image of the Tower of Hercules, a lighthouse in northern Spain. Its original construction dates to first century AC. It was given a neoclassical restoration in 1791. I saw this on Commons FPC recently.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Tower of Hercules
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Fernando
- Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Is it just me, or might there be some vertical perspective distortion? – Sca (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Scrolling up and down with the verticals at the edge of my screen, I'm seeing that, if any, it is rather minimal. The building does have some non-straight bits (the base near the stairs has a noticeable slant), so that may be contributing to any perceived distortion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the tower looked crooked, but I scrolled up and down too and it isn't. I think the spiral pattern may be producing an optical illusion. Moonreach (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Scrolling up and down with the verticals at the edge of my screen, I'm seeing that, if any, it is rather minimal. The building does have some non-straight bits (the base near the stairs has a noticeable slant), so that may be contributing to any perceived distortion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Chris, I think you meant to write "I'm 'not' seeing that . . . ", right? Bammesk (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. "I'm seeing that, if [there is any distortion], it is rather minimal." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok I got it. Bammesk (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Moonreach (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Although the phantom crookedness is messing with my mind a little bit. SirMemeGod 18:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support High quality, good EV --Tagooty (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 21:27:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very high EV (the plaza was unfortunately destroyed during the events of September 11, 2001) and I can't find another free, high-quality aerial shot of it like this. Also showcases several of its famous sculptures, including The Sphere and Ideogram.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Austin J. Tobin Plaza, Austin J. Tobin, List of buildings damaged or destroyed in the September 11 attacks, The Sphere
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Balthazar Korab
- Support (ALT1) as nominator – SirMemeGod 21:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 – Yann (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Window sill at the bottom might be worth cropping out. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn’t see that. Do I just upload a cropped version and label it as ALT1? I’m kinda new to the whole FPC process. :) SirMemeGod 12:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at commons:Commons:Overwriting existing files, as this qualifies as a historical image, it would probably be best to upload separately. The Crop Tool on Commons is fairly smart and can do that, and I believe it uploads with the least possible compression (thereby not degrading the image too much). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 I undid your crop and redid it using the Crop Tool's lossless move. Using "precise" mode will recompress the image using the same compression level as the original image, which means it can cause significant further degradation. Lossless mode doesn't recompress the image at all, but the top and left have to be cropped by a multiple of 16 pixels (which isn't a problem in this case because 0 is a multiple of 16). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- Alright, sounds good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 I undid your crop and redid it using the Crop Tool's lossless move. Using "precise" mode will recompress the image using the same compression level as the original image, which means it can cause significant further degradation. Lossless mode doesn't recompress the image at all, but the top and left have to be cropped by a multiple of 16 pixels (which isn't a problem in this case because 0 is a multiple of 16). --Ahecht (TALK
- Looking at commons:Commons:Overwriting existing files, as this qualifies as a historical image, it would probably be best to upload separately. The Crop Tool on Commons is fairly smart and can do that, and I believe it uploads with the least possible compression (thereby not degrading the image too much). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn’t see that. Do I just upload a cropped version and label it as ALT1? I’m kinda new to the whole FPC process. :) SirMemeGod 12:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 - I've made a crop and uploaded it. I think it's better without the sill. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1. Moonreach (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt1 – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support alt 1. MER-C 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 20:28:19 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality, high EV (shows several famous Columbus landmarks, such as the Rich Street Bridge, Huntington Center, Scioto River and LeVeque Tower, resolution is good, and the image is just really nice overall.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Columbus, Ohio, Columbus metropolitan area, Ohio, List of United States cities by population, Ohio, Great Lakes megalopolis
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban (latter added after Moonreach's comment)
- Creator
- Paul Wasneski
- Support (ALT1) as nominator – SirMemeGod 20:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I don't think it's wide enough to count as a panorama, though. Moonreach (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 11:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Good looking picture, but I'm seeing some lean on the buildings (the Baker-Hostetler building is particularly bad). May need distortion correction. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. -- Sca (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - perspective correction required. MER-C 10:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose original per my comment. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as is. I would support if the perspective correction is done. Bammesk (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 – Bammesk (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I uploaded Alt 1, edited for perspective correction. Pinging participants @Sir MemeGod, Moonreach, Yann, Bruce1ee, Hamid Hassani, MER-C, and Crisco 1492:. Bammesk (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt1 —Bruce1eetalk 06:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 – Hamid Hassani (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt1 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Alt 1 – Moonreach (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed "Alt 1". The building width to height ratios are now proper and same as the original. ping again @Bruce1ee, Hamid Hassani, Crisco 1492, and Moonreach:. Bammesk (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 16:30:06 (UTC)
- Reason
- historical document with high EV, high resolution
- Articles in which this image appears
- View from the Window at Le Gras, 100 Photographs that Changed the World, Timeline of photography technology, History of the camera, etc.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
- Creator
- Joseph Nicéphore Niépce
- Support as nominator File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg is already a FP, but this is vastly superior. – Yann (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- D&R per nom. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- If a delist & replace is desired than this should be closed and proper nomination should be made. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure a D&R is necessary. The other file has been a FP a for a long time, and is still useful. Yann (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I agree that there's no need for a D&R; both images have value. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support (D. & R.) – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – I would also keep both versions. Moonreach (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, no D&R. As the article explains, the other version is essentially an adaptation by a 20th-century researcher, and so should be considered a separate artwork. A delist of that work should be considered separately, if appropriate (but since that was the version that led to the image's prominence, there's an argument to be made for it). blameless 23:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 15:22:31 (UTC)
- Reason
- Interesting bit of ephemera; it is promotional, but for a product long extinct. It illustrates a few unrelated and now somewhat rare things: Two-color printing, patent medicines and paper bag packaging. (I don't believe this bag originally came with Bile Beans in it, since a Google search found similar bags that just have more advertising on the other side rather than product info like weight.) I feel that I should acknowledge this is literally a piece of trash, but it's a very nice piece of trash.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Bile Beans, patent medicine, color printing, packaging. The placement on the Bile Beans page has been less than a week, since I only just discovered we had a page for them, but for the others it's been longer.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
- Creator
- Bile Beans, exact author(s) unknown
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like the CC license. It is most probably in the public domain, so the licensing should be fixed. Yann (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Yann. This is likely PD-anon-80 and PD-US-URAA, with a CC license for countries with a low TOO (like the UK, where Wellcome is based). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The source has a scan of the other side of the bag; neither one has a copyright mark, just a trademark for "Bile Beans." (Even that was found to be invalid by a UK court, according to a particularly amusing part of the Bile Beans article.) In the US, that would be confirmation of public domain status but I'm less clear on UK copyright law. Moonreach (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The UK has, to the best of my knowledge, not required copyright notices with publication. That being said, I've tagged the image PD-UK-anon, as no author is credited, and the work was published well before the cutoff. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Moonreach (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The UK has, to the best of my knowledge, not required copyright notices with publication. That being said, I've tagged the image PD-UK-anon, as no author is credited, and the work was published well before the cutoff. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The source has a scan of the other side of the bag; neither one has a copyright mark, just a trademark for "Bile Beans." (Even that was found to be invalid by a UK court, according to a particularly amusing part of the Bile Beans article.) In the US, that would be confirmation of public domain status but I'm less clear on UK copyright law. Moonreach (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Yann. This is likely PD-anon-80 and PD-US-URAA, with a CC license for countries with a low TOO (like the UK, where Wellcome is based). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - The scan would have been better had they used a piece of black paper to prevent bleeding, but overall it's an excellent example of the contemporary advertising. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I don't love the licensing situation (I don't think our image pages are well set up for an image to be 'both' PD and CC), but I agree with Chris's assessment. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I know. Used to be I'd tag my scans with a CC license, similar to Adam, so that reusers in countries with a sweat-of-the-brow doctrine were covered... people on Commons kept removing the tags. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 10:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 15:06:59 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality image of a significant structure; view shows the entirety of the structure; high resolution
- Articles in which this image appears
- Central Radio & TV Tower
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- N509FZ
- Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Slightly grainy up close, but only slightly. Moonreach (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Carlosmarkos2345 (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2024 at 10:44:47 (UTC)
- Reason
- notable photograph, good quality, restored
- Articles in which this image appears
- Akeley Motion Picture Camera
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Paul Strand, restored by Yann
- Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sca: What do you mean? Yann (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can't tell what it is by looking at it. -- Sca (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sca: What do you mean? Yann (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I see banding and blocking in the darker areas and the whole image is kind of grainy. Moonreach (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is the best copy available on the Internet. Seeing the price of a print, I don't think a contributor could get one and scan it. Yann (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't really like it as an image, either. I can't tell what I'm looking at; were this an image intended to illustrate the camera, rather than a piece of art in its own right, I would call it downright bad. That's just my personal taste, which of course isn't a criterion, but it does make me less willing to overlook technical shortcomings, which are. Moonreach (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is the best copy available on the Internet. Seeing the price of a print, I don't think a contributor could get one and scan it. Yann (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm seeing a light patch on the left side of the image that is likely not in the original print. I agree that the technical quality is lacking; Christie's gives high resolution scans, but they save them at a high compression ratio, resulting in JPG artefacting (for example, I think File:Huang Shaoqiang - Farewell.jpg is an excellent example of the artist's work, but there are a few compression issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – It would be nice if the article page, file page, or image caption(s) said what type of camera this is. Here are the camera info links: [1] [2]. Perhaps the image caption(s) could say the photo is of the interior chamber of the camera. As Chris said, the original upload's file size is somewhat small, 177KB. Bammesk (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I created c:Category:Akeley motion picture cameras. Yann (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - visible JPEG artifacting. MER-C 10:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2024 at 15:41:00 (UTC)
- Reason
- Iconic photograph in solid reproduction and good restoration. One of Weston’s most famous photographs, also regarded a milestone in his artistic development.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nude (Charis, Santa Monica)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
- Creator
- Edward Weston
- Support as nominator – Yann (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Old hat – all too familiar – reproduced countless times. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've never seen it before. It has its own article, and has a very interesting pose. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I think the description needs to note this is scanned from a Cole Weston print - in art photography my understanding is that the making of the print is part of the process (especially when it involves manual dodging and burning, as in this case), and Edward Weston also made prints of this negative before authorising his son Cole to make further prints. I'm also a little confused about the sourcing - the image page gives three URLs, which as far as I can see are for different prints of the image (thought all by Cole Weston), and isn't clear which one is actually the image uploaded. TSP (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent use of light, notable on its own right. @TSP, I've been able to confirm that this is from the Rago Arts link based on resolution pre- and post-crop. Yann, I'd also recommend making the source clearer, since it appears the other two sources are being used for supplemental information on the photograph/print. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Most if not all of of Edward Weston's pictures available on the Internet, are prints made by his son. I understand that very few prints were made by Edward Weston himself. Information added. Yann (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)#
- Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 10:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: She is in a good pose; but, umm, her right shoulder is blurred, opaque. This may not be a weak point, esp. considering the photo's date (1936); we also see a well focus on most parts of the photo. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Nominations — to be closed
[edit]Nominations in this category are older than ten days and are to be closed. New votes will no longer be accepted.
Older nominations requiring additional input from users
[edit]These nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting.
Closing procedure
[edit]A script is available that automates the majority of these tasks: User:Armbrust/closeFPC.js
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Not promoted| }} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- If the nominator is new to FPC, consider placing
{{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Image name}}
on their talk page. To avoid overuse, do not use the template when in doubt.
When promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~
- Replace FILENAME.JPG with the name of the file that was promoted. It should show up as:
- Promoted File:FILENAME.JPG
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Add the image to:
- Template:Announcements/New featured content - newest on top, remove the oldest so that 15 are listed at all times.
- Wikipedia:Goings-on - newest on bottom.
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top.
- Add the image to the proper sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on top.
- The caption for a Wikipedian created image should read "Description at Article, by Creator". For a non-Wikipedian, it should be similar, but if the creator does not have an article, use an external link if appropriate. For images with substantial editing by one or more Wikipedians, but created by someone else, use "Description at Article, by Creator (edited by Editor)" (all editors involved should be clear from the nomination). Additionally, the description is optional - if it's essentially the same as the article title, then just use "Article, by Creator". Numerous examples can be found on the various Featured Pictures subpages.
- Add the image to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures - newest on left and remove the oldest from the right so that there are always three in each section.
- Add the Featured Picture tag and star to the image page using {{Featured picture|page_name}} (replace page_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the page_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/page_name). To add this template you most likely will have to click the "create" button on the upper right if the "edit" button is not present, generally if the image originates from Commons.
- If an edited or alternative version of the originally nominated image is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Picture version, as opposed to the original.
- Notify the nominator or co-nominators by placing {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:file_name.xxx}} on each nominator's talk page. For example: {{subst:PromotedFPC|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
- If the image was created by a Wikipedian, place {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} on the creator's talk page. For example: {{subst:UploadedFP|File:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg}}.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the October archive. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Page name}}
from this page to the bottom of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
Delist closing procedure
[edit]Note that delisting an image does not equal deleting it. Delisting from Featured pictures in no way affects the image's status in its article/s.
If consensus is to KEEP featured picture status, and the image is used in at least one article, perform the following:
- Check that the image has been in the article for at least one week. Otherwise, suspend the nomination to give it time to stabilize before continuing.
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Kept|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Optionally leave a note on the picture's talk page.
If consensus is to DELIST, or the image is unused (and consensus is not for a replacement that is used), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Delisted|}} --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Remove the image from the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs.
If consensus is to REPLACE (and at least one of the images is used in articles), perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FPC/delist/subpage:
{{FPCresult|Replaced|}} with File:NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG --~~~~
- Do NOT put any other information inside the FPCresult template. It should be copied and pasted exactly.
- Replace NEW_IMAGE_FILENAME.JPG with the name of the replacement file.
- Replace the
{{Featured picture}}
tag from the delisted image with{{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/''Image name''}}
. - Update the replacement picture's tag, adding the tag {{Featured picture|delist/image_name}} (replace image_name with the nomination page name, i.e., the image_name from Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/image_name). Remove any no longer applicable tags from the original, replacement and from any other alternatives. If the alternatives were on Commons and no longer have any tags, be sure to tag the description page with {{missing image}}.
- Replace the delisted Featured Picture in all articles with the new replacement Featured Picture version. Do NOT replace the original in non-article space, such as Talk Pages, FPC nominations, archives, etc.
- Ensure that the replacement image is included on the appropriate sub-page of Wikipedia:Featured pictures and the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs. Do this by replacing the original image with the new replacement image; do not add the replacement as a new Featured Picture.
Then perform the following, regardless of the outcome:
- Move the nomination entry to the top of the "Recently closed nominations" section. It will remain there for three days after closing so others can review the nomination. This is done by simply moving the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the top of the section. - Add the nomination entry to the bottom of the archived delist nominations. This is done by simply adding the line
{{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image name}}
to the bottom of the appropriate section of the archive. - If the nomination is listed at Template:FPC urgents, remove it.
Recently closed nominations
[edit]Nominations in this category have already been closed and are here for the purposes of closure review by FPC contributors. Please do not add any further comments or votes regarding the original nomination. If you wish to discuss any of these closures, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. Nominations will stay here for three full days following closure and subsequently be removed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 23:00:09 (UTC)
- Reason
- This high-quality and color image of 52nd Street from the 1940s (which is pretty rare), shows the city lights as they looked back in 1948. The quality of the kodachrome is also very impressive for it's time.
- Articles in which this image appears
- 52nd Street (Manhattan), Bebop, Harry Gibson, Art Tatum
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
- Creator
- William P. Gottlieb
- Support as nominator – Wcamp9 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – EV? Meh. – Sca (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Very soft in full size. Up-sampled scan? --Janke | Talk 14:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark. Yann (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – I agree it's too dark. I prefer this B&W photo in the article. The B&W photo is too soft at full size, but its pixel count is high enough so it's sharp enough when viewed at 50% size (that could be a pass for older/historic photos IMO). Bammesk (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, too dark – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per above. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 18:55:58 (UTC)
- Reason
- Aguas Calientes (volcano) on the right side and Lascar (volcano) on the left side, with Lake Lejía in foreground, in northern Chile. The lake and the camera are at a distance of about 9 miles from the volcanoes. This is the second nomination. The first nomination received 4 support votes and no opposition.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Aguas Calientes (volcano), Lascar (volcano)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Silvio Rossi
- Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Crop foreground below car? – Sca (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- First time I see a fossilized car... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Moonreach (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Somewhat soft, but that's to be expected with the f/ number. Excellent view of the landscape. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – ZZZ'S 23:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Volcanos Lascar left and Aguas Calientes right.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 10:22:45 (UTC)
- Reason
- Featured unanimously on Commons. Headline image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- American avocet
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Creator
- Rhododendrites
- Support as nominator – MER-C 10:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Moonreach (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – ZZZ'S 05:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:American avocet (84292).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2024 at 10:20:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- Unanimously featured on Commons in July. Headline image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Amblyeleotris rubrimarginata
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Diego Delso
- Support as nominator – MER-C 10:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – ZZZ'S 05:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I have slightly lower standards for underwater photography, and this easily exceeds them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 05:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Gobio (Amblyeleotris rubrimarginata), Anilao, Filipinas, 2023-08-23, DD 169.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 18:26:29 (UTC)
- Reason
- This is a composite image, one photo cut and pasted in front of another photo. See the background photo Here. Clearly the church and mountain was shot separately and added to the aurora photo. It fails FP criterion #8, excessive manipulation. A delist nomination is ongoing at Commons too.
- Articles this image appears in
- Vík í Mýrdal
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The church with a magnetic personality
- Nominator
- Bammesk (talk)
- Delist — Bammesk (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist. MER-C 19:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist. A shame; I've seen this picture before and quite liked it, but up close the editing is obvious. Moonreach (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist – per nom. Such a shame. It was a marvelous one :/ The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist – looks like I got fooled, sorry. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC) - Delist – Yann (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist – ZZZ'S 16:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 13:56:25 (UTC)
- Reason
- good quality; captures one of the main activities of the festival
- Articles in which this image appears
- Diwali
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Religion and mythology
- Creator
- created by AjoyDutta1997, edited by Aristeas
- Support as nominator – UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – IMHO an excellent and beautiful illustration of typical individual activities at Diwali. Thank you for the nomination, UnpetitproleX! – Aristeas (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 16:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very nice image. I would clear pink shades on edges. --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Moonreach (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Something special. --Argenberg (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Woman lighting the candles for the Festival of Lights in India (cropped).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 21:39:51 (UTC)
- Reason
- Three Nobel Prize laureates in physics photographed in 1931. In front row from left to right: Albert A. Michelson (1907 laureate), Albert Einstein (1921 laureate), Robert A. Millikan (1923 laureate). In back row from left to right: astronomer Walter Sydney Adams, mathematician Walther Mayer, historian Max Farrand.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Nobel Prize in Physics
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
- Creator
- Smithsonian Institution, Photographer: unknown, Restored by: Bammesk
- Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 11:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – High historical EV. Taken two years before Einstein left his native Germany, never to return. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a grayscale version. This looks yellowish. Yann (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done, although I disagree doing it indiscriminately to each and every B&W photo. Pinging participants, if there is any objection, let me know and I will revert back to the earlier version (which was voted on). @Hamid Hassani, MER-C, Sca, Yann, and Giles Laurent:. Bammesk (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fine w/me. -- Sca (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Typically of Einstein, his mind seems to be somewhere else. (Read a detailed biography of him.) -- Sca (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- to me, it looks murky and lower quality now. If you're going to convert to grey scale, the levels need to change. Oppose Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Typically of Einstein, his mind seems to be somewhere else. (Read a detailed biography of him.) -- Sca (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fine w/me. -- Sca (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Adam, I adjusted the levels and did another upload. Give it another look, thanks. Bammesk (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done, although I disagree doing it indiscriminately to each and every B&W photo. Pinging participants, if there is any objection, let me know and I will revert back to the earlier version (which was voted on). @Hamid Hassani, MER-C, Sca, Yann, and Giles Laurent:. Bammesk (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Giles Laurent (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Great! Yann (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – ZZZ'S 01:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 09:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Moonreach (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did another upload yesterday, therefore this is a procedural ping of all participants, in case there is any objection (sorry for the distraction) @Hamid Hassani, MER-C, Sca, Adam Cuerden, Giles Laurent, Yann, Zzzs, Radomianin, Bruce1ee, and Moonreach:.
User:Armbrust let's not close the nom for a few days (to give some time for feedback). Bammesk (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- I think it's misleading as to the nature of the photo to go greyscale, but at least the greyscale conversion is now done well. I personally think it's a very, very bad precedent, and I might go weak oppose, but I think it needs opposed. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 05:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said above, I disagree with indiscriminately converting each and every B&W photo to grayscale. You can see some of my thoughts Here. I think distinctions can be made for notable photos, photos by notable photographers, artistic photos, strictly historic photos, versus the more ordinary B&W photos, also distinctions can be made for prints and positive transparencies (i.e. fully processed works), versus negative films (i.e. not fully processed works). I think we can make grayscale (or other tonal) judgments on a case by case basis, and vote accordingly. Bammesk (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have mixed feelings. I do still like the current version and support it, but I feel like it would have been better to present the edits, particularly the switch to grayscale, as alts. If doing so is still an option, I would suggest running the first version that was nominated (21:06, 5 October 2024) against the current version (16:10, 13 October 2024) as an alt and ping everybody to choose between them. I don't think we all saw the same thing when we voted, and therefore it would be misleading to say the current image has a consensus of support. Moonreach (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. If you follow the timeline, there were two pings, one for This version, and a second ping for This version (both grayscale versions). Even currently, everyone has the opportunity to revise, change, or keep their votes. Bammesk (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a fair point. Moonreach (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. If you follow the timeline, there were two pings, one for This version, and a second ping for This version (both grayscale versions). Even currently, everyone has the opportunity to revise, change, or keep their votes. Bammesk (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Postpone closure per above comment by Bammesk. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Portrait of Albert Einstein and Others (1879-1955), Physicist - Restoration1.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was enough time for any participant to change their opinion, but nobody did and this is therefore promoted. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Armbrust. -- Sca (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 14:57:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- Well-composed, highly detailed shot of an interesting ruin. This angle shows the surviving structure, the parts which have fallen, and modern stabilization efforts. The king whose tomb this is was poorly documented, and this is perhaps as good a representation of him as we can have.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cambyses I, Achaemenid Empire
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture or
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others - Creator
- Diego Delso
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 10:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great quality, and a country that's underrepresented in free media, making this exceptional. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 05:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Pasargadae, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 12.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 19:32:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- Majestic shot of a weather event (its usage on the Phoenix, AZ page describes it as a simoom; the file name just calls it a dust storm) over a populated area. The one notable flaw I see is that the white section of sky on the right-hand side of the storm is fully blown out. I'll argue that that's acceptable because it's outside the area of interest, but I understand if that's a sticking point for others.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Phoenix, Arizona, Climate of Phoenix
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather
- Creator
- Alan Stark
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - surprisingly noisy for ISO 100. MER-C 17:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's very hard not to wash out the sky in a desert photo, moreso with 2011 cameras. If it was a notable duststorm, I'd say that ended discussion and would be an automatic support, but [https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32609/Dust-Storm-Brochure?bidId= they happen multiple times a year, so, presuming this is an average dust storm, it feels a little too replacable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 05:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 17:18:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- A high quality picture for 2001 (along with being one of the highest quality 9/11 pics on Wikipedia), which shows the explosion impact of the South Tower in great detail. I feel like this picture really shows a historical moment, in which many people realized that 9/11 was a terrorist attack and not just a result of an accidental plane crash. It shows everything from the blast to the smoke to the towers in good detail
- Articles in which this image appears
- September 11 attacks, 2001, Terrorism in the United States, New York City, Terrorism, NATO, etc.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American
- Creator
- rds123
- Support as nominator – Wcamp9 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I see some dust and scratches, but for once I'd suggest against restoration (except maybe the scratches in the blue parts of the sky). The central event is an explosion with debris, and I worry an attempt to fix apparent scuffs might accidentally erase real information. Moonreach (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – taking an exception for the technical quality. Bammesk (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Old hat – all too familiar – it's not the anniversary – what's the hook?. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 10:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Explosion following the plane impact into the South Tower (WTC 2) - B6019~11.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 19:34:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- I saw this pop up in On This Day for Oct. 8 and think it's pretty good. This is a crop from this version, and I think an improvement, since the color plates didn't line up cleanly with the printed border. There's good detail in close up; what irregularities there are are aspects of the original print (that is, overprinting with successive color layers that often have hard edges). There is some mild browning on the paper itself, but the sepia tint to the bottom area is its own printed color, as is clear on the uncut version.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Great Chicago Fire, 1871
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/American
- Creator
- Original by Currier & Ives, exact author unknown; crop by GreenMeansGo
- Support as nominator – Moonreach (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure my !vote counts, but yes, I do think this is an extremely important historical image. There are so many equally impactful historical events where we don't have the benefit of a quality illustration. GMGtalk 10:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any info extant re how accurate this artist's depiction may be? (Photography existed then.) – Sca (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Copelin & Hine have a number of photos available currently on Commons, but they're all about the aftermath. Photos existed, but I'm not sure they were common enough, or easily usable enough that people were really running toward the fire trying to snap a shot. File:Destruction of Chicago by Fire, Oct. 1871 LCCN2003662862.jpg is really good too, but again, it's a litho. GMGtalk 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any info extant re how accurate this artist's depiction may be? (Photography existed then.) – Sca (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful lithograph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The border is part of a lithograph. They aren't meant to be artifically cropped. There may be cases for offering a cropped alternative, but the thin border this has really doesn't rise to that level. In my eyes, this changes it from historical artefact to bad textbook illustration. Also, Currier and Ives lithographs are hand-tinted, and this one seems rather slapdash. Compare https://oldprintshop.com/uploads/jpg/100018.jpg (from https://oldprintshop.com/product/163922?inventoryno=100018) Or [3] Or, hell [https://www.loc.gov/resource/pga.06548/ this copy of the same lithograph without all the weird streaking. Like, I get the fire colours are nice in this one, but there's major artistic flaws elsewhere. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Chicago in Flames by Currier & Ives, 1871 (cropped).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 02:05:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- Very high quality map, featuring the Shanghai International Settlement and the Shanghai French Concession within central Shanghai.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Shanghai International Settlement
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Maps
- Creator
- Army Map Service
- Support as nominator – GodzillamanRor (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – good EV in its article, well preserved, The scan resolution is 150 pixels per inch (per the scale on the map), and all is legible when enlarged (say at 200%). I updated the source links. Bammesk (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Question - What makes this map preferable over File:Jichisan Shokai - Shanghai City Street Map - 上海市市街圖 (1932).jpg or File:Map of Shanghai (1918), North-China Daily News and Herald.jpg (both of which shade-in the international settlements)? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the other two maps. One of them is older, it dates to 1918. The settlement regime ended around 1942. The nominated map dates to approximately 1935 (per the map itself, although it's a 1945 print), so the nom map is the most recent of the three. I like the bilingual annotations on This map, but the problem I see is that its legends are in Chinese only (not readily legible in an en-Wiki article). Also the nom map is in the article since 2012, whereas the other two maps aren't. Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Stability is a fair point, though given that the two I linked above were uploaded this year (though other versions saved at higher compression are older) it's to be expected. Hmmm... given the dynamic construction of Shanghai in the early 20th century, the seventeen years between the 1918 map and the 1935 map nominated here could be significant. Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Moonreach (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Shanghai 1935 S1 AMS-WO.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 02:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 01:00:41 (UTC)
- Reason
- It shows one of the most influential and innovative people ever, Steve Jobs, with one of his greatest business achievements before he died. It is also a very high quality image of Jobs.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Steve Jobs, iPhone 4
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
- Creator
- Matt Yohe
- Support as nominator – Wcamp9 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Promo-style pic of scant EV for most readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Blurry up close and the screen of the iPhone is pretty washed out. I also feel like this is tantamount to advertising. While promotional aspects aren't in the featured picture criteria, I feel like that aspect works against criteria #3, that featured images be Wikipedia's best work. Moonreach (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – I agree it's very unsharp. Bammesk (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per above. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 00:50:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- Probably the most high-quality image of Mercury, in which he is performing live in one of his famous flambouyant outfits in 1977. This is one of the best images of Mercury (once nominated 14 years ago but not promoted). I believe this is an interesting photo, which really captures Mercury's well-known energy in his concerts
- Articles in which this image appears
- Freddie Mercury, Stage name, etc.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Carl Lender, restored by Lošmi
- Support as nominator – Wcamp9 (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – Dark, poor detail, backlit. – Sca (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – I'm okay with overlooking the darkness, given that this kind of environment is where Mercury made most of his public appearances, but it seems like no part of the image is fully in focus. But for that, I'd support; it's a very dynamic photo and the scan quality is high enough to get the film grain. Moonreach (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Given that this is an action shot from 1977, taken in low quality lighting, with what had to have been high speed film... Yes, it's out of focus - I'm thinking, based on sharpness, this was a low F-number that ended up focusing on his crotch. It's also an excellent shot given the difficulties and technology of the time. (Heck, there are times when I can't even get that quality with newer tech). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Yann (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've mulled it over some more and I say support. This photo has excellent composition. Its technical shortcomings are real, but Chris is right that they're minimal for the conditions the picture was taken in. I have myself shot film of performers in dark rooms, and there's real skill required to get something this good when you're dealing with a lot of movement in low light. The focus is a bit off, but only a bit, and this is a captured moment that won't come again. Moonreach (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good for its time and the circumstances. – Aristeas (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. MER-C 10:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Acceptable given its time and situation – Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 12:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted File:Freddie Mercury performing in New Haven, CT, November 1977.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Suspended nominations
[edit]This section is for Featured Picture (or delisting) candidacies whose closure is postponed for additional editing, rendering, or copyright clarification.