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

Skyline of Datong, China

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2017 at 02:56:47 (UTC)

Reason

There are few pictures of Chinese cities that are featured, so I started searching for good ones. Apart from being an accurate depiction of the skyline (taken from a large mountain I believe), I think it meets all criteria, however there are two versions depending on your belief in posthoc editing. The second is the original.

Articles in which this image appears

Datong

FP category for this image

Places/Urban

Creator

Chlukoe

• Support alt as nominator However, I want to post the thumb of the original (unedited) photograph for an alternate in all it's polluted glory but I don't know how. It is found here: [1] Mattximus (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think the sharpening and contrast enhancement are probably improvements, but the more extreme colour/saturation shift in the greens, and in particular the artificial blue sky, may be frowned upon. On the whole I'd suggest that editing to bring out the detail is good; editing which specifically presents a false reality is bad. TSP (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I generally agree, but couldn't figure out how to show a thumb of the alternate. I feel the new one only changed the colour/saturation and not sharpness, but I'm not an expert. I kinda prefer the alt since it is more realistic, but I can see either way so it's up to others to see which they prefer, if any. Mattximus (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If you want them both to be considered, you should upload the retouched version as a separate file. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: I've swapped the files, in order to avoid confusion as to which is the original. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Buildings on the right (and on the very extreme left) are tilted. -- Veggies (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belenois gidica abyssinica on Distephanus angulifolius flowers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2017 at 13:00:03 (UTC)

Reason

High-quality image of a widely-distributed butterfly

Articles in which this image appears

Belenois_gidica

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Alandmanson

• Support as nominator – Alandmanson (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - There's something wrong with the tonal scale, here. White is a flat grey - is this image manipulated (levels, curves)? --Janke | Talk 14:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, you are right - fixed --Alandmanson (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Still not quite right, IMHO. Is it originally a bit over-exposed? --Janke | Talk 18:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Not enough definition for FP. ps I think it may be incorrectly identified. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am pretty sure about the ID: See [2] & [3] --Alandmanson (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think ssp. abyssinica lives in Ethiopia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes it does; but it also lives in a bunch of other countries - see the Wikipedia page. --Alandmanson (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• We should never rely on Wikipedia! - I was looking at the funet website which I usually trust, but hunting further on the internet you are Ok to assume that yours will be abyssinica. I've left my images (not as good as yours) unspecified as to sub-species. Best wishes Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skyline of Dallas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 22:32:11 (UTC)

Reason

Similar in quality to other featured pictures. A good view of the city's skyline from an elevated point. Clickable in its article.

Articles in which this image appears

List of tallest buildings in Dallas

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban

Creator

Michael Barera

• Support as nominator – Sandvich18 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment It's a clear shot, but is soft around the edges and I wonder if that's a limitation of the camera? Would be more useful if all the buildings are identified with notes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Could you show me an example of an image with buildings identified? You can see something similar in the article but I'm not sure how I would go about formatting the image description. Sandvich18 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment It's technically fine (though not particularly striking)—however, its encyclopedic value is rather limited. If it's supposed to illustrate the skyline of Dallas, it cannot be accomplishing that in its full scope. There's more to the city (one of the largest in the United States) than just what's in the picture. As proof, the photo was taken from the Reunion Tower—the fifteenth-tallest structure in the city—and yet it is not in the photo. Such a tall structure would undoubtedly be part of the skyline of the city. I think the photo that was on the article page before this one, File:Bleu Ciel panoramic nightview of Downtown Dallas (20823639102).jpg accomplished more in scope, despite its resolution. -- Veggies (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I believe there's nothing wrong with sacrificing a single non-habitable structure (the list is about buildings anyway) for a great, elevated view of pretty much the whole Dallas Downtown. (Check out this map for reference.) I don't think that there is actually "more to the city [...] than just what's in the picture" as you said — it would be difficult, if not impossible, to include any more high-rises in a single photo of similar composition to this one. The image you linked is awful in my opinion as the focus isn't on the tallest buildings and I can barely make individual ones apart. It's too wide to include near the lead and the resolution is very bad. Sandvich18 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So don't use a single photo or a similar composition. The photo is just unimpressive to me. I also don't think it captures the scope of its intent (tallest-buildings in Dallas), but if it must be from the Reunion Tower, I think File:Dallas view.jpg is a superior photo in terms of its composition, contrast, and colors (it has terrible artifacts, however). As for showing off the skyline, File:Dallas skyline daytime.jpg is more striking and File:Dallas Texas skyline from water in 2002.jpg has a better scope. I'm not opposing the inclusion of your photo—I'm just not supporting it. Featured pictures do not have to go in the lead. -- Veggies (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ermina Zaenah

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 04:09:44 (UTC)

Reason

I was quite pleased when I acquired two reasonably good condition postcards showing Ermina Zaenah, an Indonesian actress whose career ended shortly before the fall of Sukarno. This, I think, has the better EV and composition of the two (the other being File:Ermina Zaenah, portrait (c 1960).jpg). I know the image is a bit small, but this was necessitated by the image being a) postcard size (this scan is equivalent to 500 PPI) and b) printed on silk print paper (which produces a honeycomb pattern that needed removal).

Articles in which this image appears

Ermina Zaenah

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Uncredited (style is similar to Djakartawood); restored by me.

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nom. It is small and a bit soft, but given the source material, I would say it is excellent. Mattximus (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support lNeverCry 04:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Excellent one! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – Sandvich18 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Ermina Zaenah, three-quarter portrait (c 1960) - restored (without name).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wat Phra Kaew

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017 at 19:00:11 (UTC)

Reason

Iconic view of Thailand's most iconic group of buildings. I particularly like the late afternoon lighting, which shows how the structures gleam in the sunlight and gives the picture better contrast than those taken at high noon (though it admittedly casts some shadows).

Articles in which this image appears

Wat Phra Kaew

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Ninaras (via Flickr)

• Support as nominator – Paul_012 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Shadows of trees disturbing (the big ones on the lawn). Crop is too close to the top of the tower.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support For me nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Per Chris. lNeverCry 03:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Added Edit 1 - as the objections raised related entirely to elements which were not part of the encyclopedic content of the picture (grass and sky), it seemed worth attempting a quick edit to address these. The only edits are using cloning and Content Aware Fill to remove the tree shadows and add some extra sky (including removing the bush from the top corner); there are no edits to the main subject. Thoughts? Is this sort of edit OK for FP? (Feel free to consider separately the question of whether they are in theory, and whether my particular edits are sufficiently competent!) TSP (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hmm. I'm not quite sure. I doubt anyone would oppose cloning in a strip 20 pixels wide, but at >10% of the original height this seems quite significant. That said, I'd still like to support the edit, but the cloned clouds in the top-right corner do show some visible repeating patterns. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Paul 012: Edit 2, as a rather more moderate edit which I think also takes out the repeating patterns? (This is a CSS image crop at the moment, to avoid filling Commons with very similar images, so clicking on it will take you to the original; it could easily be created properly if accepted.) TSP (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Better, I think. I'd alternatively support Edit 2. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit 2 - Looks much better.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit 2 – Bammesk (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit 2 - the subject is good, and I'm happy with my edit if others are :-) TSP (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've replaced the CSS crop with a proper image crop, as it's gaining popularity - this should be identical. (Though I think my previous display code was slightly wrong, so this one displays about a pixel wider - all edits should now be displaying at the same width.) TSP (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support edit 2 -- 1989 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Wat Phra Kaew by Ninara TSP edit crop.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Male sapphire bluet

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2017 at 16:17:59 (UTC)

Reason

high quality image that illustrates the species well

Articles in which this image appears

Africallagma sapphirinum

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Alan Manson

• Support as nominator – Alandmanson (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Great one! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Thank you for nominating the image. Please note that the minimum resolution expected of all nominations is 1500px on each side (exceptions being possible in some cases, mostly for historical images or images with extreme ratios).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Not bad, but I'm going to have to oppose due to the resolution being quite a bit smaller than the minimum. Mattximus (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose small file and not sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reine

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 14:18:23 (UTC)

Reason

Gorgeous image of a fishing village within its context. High quality, good EV in both articles

Articles in which this image appears

Reine, fishing village

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Simo Räsänen

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Beautiful panorama: colorful, dynamic atmosphere, broad contrasts. -- Veggies (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Great lanscape, good photo! --Janke | Talk 11:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support – Charming. Sca (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

• Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support impressive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Charles, could you sign your !vote so it can be counted? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- I thought this is fairy tale painting. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Reine at Reinefjorden, 2010 September.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Added image to Places/Panorama instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thai Airways 747-400 taking off at Munich Airport

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 12:17:03 (UTC)

Reason

I was a bit surprised by the scarcity of FPs of commercial airliners, especially for a plane as iconic as the 747. This image is featured on Commons. It illustrates the takeoff well, showing the undercarriage, flaps and exhaust, with the control tower and terminal in the background providing context. Currently it's mostly just doing the job of showing what the 747-400 variant looks like though. (I thought of adding it to Takeoff but there's not much space there and I don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject.)

Articles in which this image appears

Boeing 747

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air

Creator

Julian Herzog

• Support as nominator – Paul_012 (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Airport buildings in background mar the composition. --Janke | Talk 19:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose – per Janke, and the base of the buildings are cut off. Bammesk (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose – Yeah, the outboard engine on the right wing looks sorta like it's exhausting right onto the tower. Sca (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, personally I think the fact that the juxtaposition allows us to actually see the exhaust jet coming out of the engines adds instead of subtracts from EV, but I'd understand if others don't share the opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buffalo in Baluran National Park

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2017 at 08:13:01 (UTC)

Reason

Very striking, good illustration of the park and one of its notable fauna species.

Articles in which this image appears

Baluran National Park

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Candra Firmansyah

• Support as nominator –  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – Bammesk (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Conditional Support – I would like a slight CW rotation, since the image looks tilted visually, even if it may not be, technically... --Janke | Talk 05:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I don't think this 'Adds significant encyclopedic value' any more than the picture it replaced a couple of weeks ago. And to represent the NP, a normal daylight shot would be better, showing more of the terrain. An animal should not be the focus of the main image illustrating a National Park, and certainly not a feral animal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The feral population is widely noted in the literature, hence why this image was selected over (say) the peacock one. The buffalo adds EV; it is a widely recognized fauna of the region. You are welcome to feel the image lacks appropriate EV, but your assertion that a feral animal is "certainly not" capable of representing an area is verifiably false.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for this being no different than the image it replaced, reviews of Baluran on pages such as TripAdvisor focus on the Africa-esque savanna; the park also advertises itself as "Little Africa in Java". The savanna has much greater EV. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose as Buffalo is mixed up in background. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lucca Madonna

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 15:20:24 (UTC)

Reason

extremely high quality scan of a notable painting, and therefore high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Lucca Madonna, Dresden Triptych

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Jan van Eyck

• Support as nominator – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Impeccable! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Nice! NeverBeGameOver (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Jan van Eyck - Lucca Madonna - Google Art Project.jpg Bammesk (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pied-winged swallow (Hirundo leucosoma)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 08:21:26 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image illustrates article well. FP on Commons. POTD on French Wikipedia 4 June 2017.

Articles in which this image appears

Pied-winged swallow

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Tail feathers seem oddly OOF.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, Chris, I'd cloned out a wispy piece of grass but didn't do a very good job. Now better. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - Much better  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Nice! Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Marvellous Spider-Man 14:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per others. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted File:Pied-winged swallow (Hirundo leucosoma).jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red-crowned woodpecker

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 08:43:33 (UTC)

Reason

High quality image. Illustrates two articles well, showing how this woodpecker will sometimes eat fruit. FP on Commons.

Articles in which this image appears

Red-crowned woodpecker, Bactris gasipaes

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

Charlesjsharp

• Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment – technically not so good, there is excessive noise. Comparing to the first upload: [4], seems like the shadows were pulled up in camera or in software. My 2 cents: shooting at iso 400 using a monopod, or shooting say 10 handheld images in a row at iso 400 (camera does 7 fps) and then picking the most stable image would be an improvement. Bammesk (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment – Lack of tonal contrast between subject and background makes this image rather indistinct, IMO. (Too much peewah.) Sca (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I will Support as we need some novelty. A very refreshing picture. This should be today's featured picture in future. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment – Looks over-saturated/over-processed to my eyes, especially the reds. Otherwise, a good photo. Kaldari (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Kaldari. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subducting tectonic plate

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 13:43:30 (UTC)

Reason

Meets all the criteria for a FP SVG, is freely licensed, W3C checked and valid, fonts are rendering correctly, and contains neither raster components nor watermarks. Am taking suggestions for improvements if anyone has any, just let me know and I will be glad to accommodate. Am especially proud of the plumes of rising volcanic ash and the swirls of molten rock in the asthenosphere.

Articles in which this image appears

Subduction, Magma chamber, Accretionary wedge, Volcanic arc, Diapir

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology

Creator

KDS4444

• Support as nominator – KDS4444 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Is it possible to get rid of the transparent area along the top and left?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely. Done. KDS4444 (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alright, support. Looks good.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comments:
  • The server seems to be doing a poor job of rendering the text in the PNG thumbnails (the kerning's plain broken). Not sure if there's anything that can be done to fix this though.
  • Why doesn't the 25°–45° use proper degree symbols? (Right now they appear to be floating circle paths, while the 25 has an extra combining character of some sort stuck to it.) Also, the hyphens should probably be en dashes.
  • The labels on the left appear quite untidy. Could they be more evenly spaced?
  • The illustration is beautifully done, but the fact that there's so much white space around it makes it feel quite cramped. The detailed patterns are hard to make out even at the nominal size, and at lower zooms make the image appear really busy.
  • Not to discount the amount of work gone into this, which is greatly appreciated, but I think that this subject might actually work better as a 2-D cross-section (with labels within the image itself). --Paul_012 (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, but no winged mortal phantom hath e'er placed his kiss so gently as thou hast now done... (Thank you for that.) KDS4444 (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Side view of Patenga sea beach

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 22:19:18 (UTC)

Reason

Meets all the criteria for a FP. High quality image illustrates several article well and good illustration of the popular beach in Patenga, Chittagong. QI & VI on Commons, POTD on Bangla Wikipedia on April 26, 2006.

Articles in which this image appears

Patenga

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others

Creator

Moheen Reeyad

• Support as nominator – ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose – sorry but visually not interesting. The area's features, the lighthouse, palm trees, stunning sunset (per article), are missing in this photo. The article text is unsourced. Bammesk (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose – Negligible EV due to absence of identifying features (and of people). This beach scene could be in any of multiple locales. Sca (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Kind of a nice view, but lighting needs to be more dynamic.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant - Front Façade

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 04:56:16 (UTC)

Reason

Meets all FP criteria. Adds significant encyclopedic value to multiple articles.

Articles in which this image appears

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant, Piquette Avenue Industrial Historic District, List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan, National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, List of Michigan State Historic Sites in Wayne County

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Jackdude101

• Support as nominator – Jackdude101 ^talk cont 04:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose – good EV, but excessive perspective distortion and blown highlights (clouds). Bammesk (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment – I corrected the perspective (uploaded over original, purge cache if not visible). The clouds will inevitably blow when photographing the shaded side of a building. --Janke | Talk 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Much better, however I would keep my vote, it is generally not a sharp photo, particularly on left side. It has good EV though. Bammesk (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment – Is a three-quarter or oblique view showing (some of) the side of the bldg. possible? Sca (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Sca: Yes (see below). Both images were taken within minutes of each other. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Took the liberty of fixing the distortion on this one, too. However, the thick cables over the building mar the image IMO. --Janke | Talk 19:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  • Yes, I'd support the oblique view if Jackdude would care to make it an alt, although it could be cropped tighter on both sides. More visual information. And the front-on original seems rather static, IMO. Sca (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Sca: Okay, that can be an alt image. I added an expanded description to its Commons page and cropped it. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 22:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Alternate. – Sca (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose crop is way too close, cables are distracting in alt.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]