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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:30:59 (UTC)

Reason

Much EV, FP on Wikimedia Commons, High Quality

Articles in which this image appears

Haetera piera

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It doesn't meet our current size requirements (1500px on each side) and more than half the image isn't even the butterfly, so if you cropped it it would be even smaller. Sorry, just too small and not sharp enough. — raekyt 11:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 07:09:52 (UTC)

Reason

All features of the dragonfly have been brought out well. Artistic image. Good lighting and color balance.

Articles in which this image appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Marsh_Glider

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Kallidaimaniac

• Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 07:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the focus on the wings. -- Mason Doering ^talk 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also pretty sure this isn't a bird. -- Mason Doering ^talk 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oops, sorry about that. Corrected the category. Kallidaimaniac
• Oppose Although I can appreciated the difficulty of capturing an image of a dragonfly with a camera, since they're nearly impossible even to catch with a insect net, lol. It's just not sharp enough to warrant FP status IMO. It's also being used essentially in a gallery, which is against criteria. The article is over-illustrated for a stub, so adding this image isn't adding any value to the encyclopedia. An article that size would do fine with 2 images, one for male and one for female, and since the wings are not in focus, a VERY key diagnostic for ID in Odonata, then this is a worse EV than File:Trithemis_aurora_by_kadavoor.JPG which the wings are more in focus. — raekyt 11:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 19:51:14 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

April Flower

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers

Creator

Vivek Katekhaye

• Support as nominator --Vivek7866 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not identified (Properly identify the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable.); not used in any article (The image should be used in one or more articles.). JKadavoor Jee 06:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it did meet those criteria, it would have almost no chance of passing due to the technical flaws in it's lighting, that part of the flower is cropped off, and not showing any vegetation of the plant. So I move to Speedy Close — raekyt 08:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close Too little of this picture is in focus. The edge of the left (from the top petal) petal, along with the bottom in the right corner and the one above so all fall out of focus (some more than others) towards the ends of the leaves. In the background is the stem, which shouldn't necessarily be in focus, would be a better detail to have than to not have. The focus of the photo seems to be less the flower and more the pollination tendrils sprouting from the center, a bottommost of which falls out of focus similarly to the petals of the flower. The blackground of the photograph is very distracting because of several marks on the wall or other material of which it consists (crop, blend). Where was this picture taken? There is a good few inches of unnecessary space to the left of the flower. Finally, the uppermost petal is cut off at the top (cropping issue, may I presume?) and should be fixed if possible. ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close per Saw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closed --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 15:17:31 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp; all features seen. Meets FPC criteria.

Articles in which this image appears

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Marsh_Glider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libellulidae

FP category for this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Kallidaimaniac

• Support as nominator --Hari Krishnan 15:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The colours are wonderful, but it's very noisey, and the usage in the articles isn't great. J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 10:13:15 (UTC)

Reason

High Quality, FP in Commons and Spanish Wikipedia, Much EV.

Articles in which this image appears

Diaethria clymena

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects

Creator

Paolostefano1412

• Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Mason Doering ^talk 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice capture and good detail. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Diaethria marchalii.jpg --Julia\^talk 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 18:28:37 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Didgeridoo

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Noel Feans

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hmmm, I'm not sure what to say about this one. The photo itself is actually very good (albeit a little overly contrasty), but for a traditional Aboriginal Australian instrument, it doesn't really 'fit' as one of the lead images in the article. It's not just that the player is Spanish rather than Aboriginal, but also because the instrument itself looks like a cheap, touristy didgeridoo. I guess it could illustrate the way the instrument has transcended traditional use (as it has), but I think I'd prefer a more traditional setting for a featured picture of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a indigenous Australian instrument, and as such an image like that would be INFINITELY better EV than, to be very politically incorrect, a dirty hippy in Spain would be. So I'd oppose on EV grounds. — raekyt 07:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On the fence I agree with Diliff; while technically this photo is good, the EV of a white guy playing a didgeridoo in Spain seems limited (though it's certainly not without value). The appropriation of Indigenous Australian culture by non-Indigenous people is a perennial hot issue, though at least in this case its unlikely that the Spanish guy was taking business from an Indigenous Australian didgeridoo player! Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would need to talk about something like that, which it doesn't, just mention that some very off-the-beaten-path music types use it... It's not traditional, looks like a cheap $30 one you can buy online, and a white Spanish guy playing it... It's far from ideal to illustrate the article. — raekyt 10:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At present it sits in a section called "Names & etymology" where it doesn't support the text at all.--Melburnian (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 11:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 15:53:42 (UTC)

Reason

A professional-quality photograph from a notable photographer. High quality, nice big photograph.

Articles in which this image appears

Jim West (guitarist)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment

Creator

Kyle Cassidy

• Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Is he auditioning for a part in a 1980s Milk Tray advert? It isn't IMO a particularly flattering photograph and I'd never guess that he was a musician. While an FP of a performer doesn't have to show them performing, it does help. For example, this photo has much higher EV with the Hawaiian shirt, shell necklace and guitar. I wonder if we can get hold of it instead? -- Colin°^Talk 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the shot from the photographer, not the subject. I thought I may get some opposes like this, but I thought the photo deserved a chance :) J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was half expecting you to reply that the "Milk Tray Man" was actually part of his act with "Weird Al" Yankovic, and that the EV was therefore enormously high to those "in the know" :-) I wonder if these photographs have higher EV as representative of the work of the photographer than of the subject? Colin°^Talk 23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's actually a very visually interesting portrait with good technicals... We don't need a picture of a person for their biography to be them doing what they're known for.. it's a biography about them, not an article about only one aspect of their life. So that you can't figure out he's an artist from this photograph, so what? — raekyt 07:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The lighting is done well, notably the left side of his face, and the other parts are in generous detail. But I must say, is the subject of this picture Jim West or Jim West's shirt? ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 17:48:49 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and EV

Articles in which this image appears

Echeveria elegans

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Something about this image just scream's that someone has tinkered far to much with color saturation, making it less likely that these are anywhere near true colors for this plant... — raekyt 11:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 17:58:27 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Black-backed jackal, Canis, Jackal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Lycaon

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The photo is great, but thanks to that witch Mother Nature he blends into the background quite a bit. But it's not horrible, and it couldn't be fixed, so who cares. I like the blood near his paws, the color is brought out nicely, but there's some motion blur around his face. Quite odd because his body & tail are all in great focus and detail, but as soon as you look into his head and facial area it begins to blur. I don't know how that happened, maybe he began to turn his head just as the picture was taken. Or maybe I'm crazy. Someone clear this up. ---Saw1998 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I don't have any problem with the slight motion blur. I don't believe that the problem is fixable, so why worry about it? Dusty777 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 18:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 19:47:55 (UTC)

Reason

Quality Image on Commons, high EV (widely used)

Articles in which this image appears

Novodevichy Convent

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

A.Savin

• Support as nominator --A.Savin (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 20:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I prefer a picture taken form the front or back side clearly showing the crosses, whenever possible. A caption as in the article (Cathedral of Our Lady of Smolensk (16th century)) is needed here too. JKadavoor Jee 06:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with Jkadavoor, not a good angle. — raekyt 08:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like it is the front...--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By the orientation of the crosses, it seems not. Would be rather poor form to put them on in the wrong direction in relation to the front of the building. It appears to be a shot of the side of the building. This would be an image from the front, sort of. If you google the church there's plenty of different angles and this is clearly not the front. — raekyt 11:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good to know. However, I saw churches that had a rather unnatural position, even the crosses :) Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An Eastern Church (and it's crosses) should always faces the east. JKadavoor Jee 15:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 07:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 23:33:44 (UTC)

Reason

Good image quality, has a free license

Articles in which this image appears

Sue (dinosaur), Tyrannosauridae, Tyrannosaurus

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology

Creator

ScottRobertAnselmo

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk to me!} 23:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's a cast, not the real skull, so what's the EV? Spikebrennan (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose being a cast it's EV is lower in Sue (dinosaur). According to the article "The museum made a cast of the skull, and altered this cast to remove the distortions, thus approximating what the original undistorted skull may have looked like." So good EV would be showing an angle in comparison with say File:Sue skull.jpg to show those distortions and used in the article approprately. It's use in all three articles seems to be just tacked on, and adds little or nothing, possibly detracting from the article due to over-illustration. A more side-on shot like File:Tyrannosaurus Rex Holotype.jpg for Tyrannosauridae & Tyrannosaurus has signifigantly more EV than this angle of just the skull. — raekyt 08:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 07:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 16:32:23 (UTC)

Reason

Encyclopaedic depiction of the yak and its interaction with people. I originally found and uploaded this from flickr before the higher res was provided, so I'll allow myself to move this ahead a little.

Articles in which this image appears

Yak, Yamdrok Lake, Tibet

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Dennis Jarvis

• Support as nominator --Samsara (FA • FP) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as in Commons. JKadavoor Jee 04:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV and technically well executed. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A solid picture with good encyclopedic value. Cat-fivetc ---- 21:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – High EV and technically very good. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bos grunniens at Yundrok Yumtso Lake.jpg --Julia\^talk 17:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 00:13:49 (UTC)

Reason

Irreplaceable photo of what is now a UNESCO World Heritage site, decent resolution. People add to scale.

Articles in which this image appears

Buddhas of Bamiyan (in the form of File:Taller Buddha of Bamiyan before and after destruction.jpg, to which it's hyperlinked)

FP category for this image

Artwork/Sculpture

Creator

uncredited

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure I am happy supporting a file which is not actually used in the article... J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The file is linked to its collage version, which is used, so I decided to give it a go. Brandmeister^talk 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Licencing needs figured out, the license on it is clearly wrong. — raekyt 02:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific as to the problem? The current template used seems to fit Unesco's simple claim "unrestricted." Chick Bowen 05:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It say's unknown photographer/source? There is no copyright in Afghanistan, so ((PD-Afghanistan))? Where is the source on Unesco's website with the copyright statement? I can't find the image on there... — raekyt 07:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The statement is here (upper right corner, below the statue), the source is on a different url. Brandmeister^talk 09:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems it's unrestricted due to PD-Afghanistan... but I donno.. seems strange. I don't think they're the photographers of all those different images. — raekyt 17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 07:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 14:50:07 (UTC)

Reason

Detailed and good quality photograph of the University of Coimbra (probably the best available in Wikipedia) adding to various articles. Notice that no downsample was made with the purpose of apparently imprve sharpness (which is more or less common in Wikipedia).

Articles in which this image appears

Coimbra, University of Coimbra, Portugal, Portal:Portugal

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In this case, it seems like the light was good, but yet again, the image seems underexposed. I suspect the surreal sky colours would be mitigated by raising the exposure. The sky should not be the focus of the image. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support high EV. Tomer T (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might be off topic, but I'd like to say that 2/3 of data from a picture are actually made up from interpolation of RAW data. So downsampling should be perfectly fine in most cases since we mainly loose imaginary data (Have no proof, just assumptions). Now about the pic itself, the lighting is a bit dull, and that's a strange projection here we have, with that curved ground. I like playing with projection in such ways, but don't think they fit the topic well (architecture) in the context of an encyclopedia. You should try General Panini, to minimize the horizontal distortion. I have found it to rescue me well in similar cases. - Blieusong (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Noticed after that horizontal FOV is 92°. Since that the extreme lower end of a ultra wide angle (but still standard) lens, you could even switch to rectilinear IMO and still keep the stretching in the corners under control. - Blieusong (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the advice, Benh. I have done what you suggested and the perspective is indeed better. The price to pay is the flag on top of the tower! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why you went for equirectangular and looking slightly upward... sorry then (a reason I tend to take ridiculously huge margins now in such cases ;) ). Maybe you can keep the flag and fill hole with careful cloning? It's only sky to fill (easy as far as I can tell). - Blieusong (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload the version with the hole, I can edit in some sky. Then we can renom =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I mentioned lighting is a bit dull, I also tried to improve things a bit. Free for you to have a look (but don't use it, it was quickly made from jpeg). [1] - Blieusong (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 09:20:51 (UTC)

Reason

Illustrates the subject well, good angle.

Articles in which this image appears

Dancheong

FP category for this image

Places/Architecture

Creator

Daplaza

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This may have more EV at an angle, as currently we cannot see if there are multiple levels of the roof or... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 13:55:50 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good quality, good angle

Articles in which this image appears

Baptistry (Pisa)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

NotFromUtrecht

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Samsara (FA • FP) 16:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good image... gazhiley 17:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Solid architectural image — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good picture.BNK (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pisa Baptistry.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 22:05:00 (UTC)

Reason

Well-composed shot of the building with its surrounding environs, which gives the viewer a sense of place. This was one of the finalists in the Wiki Loves Monuments competition for the U.S (disclosure: I was one of the judges). Yes, there's a little blown-out area on the dome, but I don't think it's enough to disqualify the image.

Articles in which this image appears

Vermont State House

FP category for this image

Architecture

Creator

Jonathan King

• Support as nominator --—howcheng {chat} 22:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Excessive noise, especially on the two pillars closest to camera. I'm not a big fan of the composition - would prefer this to be taken dead centre rather that off to the side. Also the foreground is very dark. Finally the blown dome is enough coupled with the other three reasons for me to oppose... gazhiley 09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The composition seems snapshotty to me --Muhammad(talk) 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This picture has good contrast and very high quality.BNK (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same picture? High Quality? It's all blurred and fuzzy?! Please make sure you look at more than just the thumbnail or the first image - please click the view at full resolution link... gazhiley 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• Oppose Snapshotty, over saturated, blurry, grainy... — raekyt 05:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 22:42:17 (UTC)

Reason

High resolution, notable painting and artist. This is a bit more striking, in my opinion, than the 1636 version (which can nonetheless be included as an alt)

Articles in which this image appears

The Judgment of Paris (Rubens), Judgment of Paris, Museo del Prado

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Peter Paul Rubens

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for a painting that's over 9 feet long, I think this image is VASTLY too small to represent it as a featured picture. — raekyt 05:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 09:31:39 (UTC)

Reason

Sharp photo, showing a woman guard, which isn't that common to this kind of duty.

Articles in which this image appears

Royal Guards (Sweden)

FP category for this image

People/Military

Creator

Cha già José

• Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 09:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As 1) the crop is too tight 2) the side-on angle is uninteresting and 3) the only article this is in doesn't mention the gender split of the personnel assigned to this duty (is it actually unusual in the Swedish military? Australia's Federation Guard includes many women, and the main reason that this is unusual internationally is that ceremonial guard duties are typically undertaken by infantry units in which women are in most cases not permitted to serve). As a war nerd, this photo of a female Swedish palace guard has stronger EV as it more clearly depicts her, and she's - very unusually for guard roles - equipped with a radio which suggests that she's actually guarding the building and isn't there for ceremonial purposes only. The technical quality of that photo isn't great though, and the side-on angle is also dull. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't find any problem with the crop or angle. I personally prefer a half body portrait than a full body as referenced by Nick. JKadavoor Jee 16:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There seems to be a tilt (visible in the buildings and windows). Should this be corrected? --125.25.138.201 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I feel the EV is greatly reduced by a side shot, it's illustrating the guard, so a front shot showing the full uniform would be A LOT better EV. The side shot is only marginal, and not ideal for illustrating this. — raekyt 06:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I largely agree with Raeky: the crop is awkward; you don't generally see crops at knee level; the convention is generally to put the bottom either from about shoulder height to a little below the waist (when you want to get in the bottom of a jacket or the like), or to show the full person. I don't really mind the side view, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Cat-fivetc ---- 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 10:16:31 (UTC)

Reason

Impressive, high quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Derweze, Door to Hell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena

Creator

Tormod Sandtorv

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In spite of some technical defficiencies (unsharp, blown highlights in the flames), this is an amazing sight. As the image description says, it's bigger than it looks... The other image in the article shows just how big it really is. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: agree with Diliff, and could now be developed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 21:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Saw a documentary on this site a few years back - it's an amazing spectacle... This picture does it justice, and is more than eye catching... gazhiley 10:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To me it looks as big as it shows in Google Maps (roughly size of two basketball court if I'm right). Person on the left helps giving scale. But impressive despite all the flaws listed by Diliff. Caption could be improved ("It's bigger than it looks" isn't very encyclopedic ;) ). - Blieusong (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I updated the description of the image (just using article material) and added my estimation of the field of view (which I believe to be fairly accurate based on own experience and map). - Blieusong (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wouldn't say it's an amazing angle but good enough picture and high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Darvasa gas crater panorama.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 23:32:19 (UTC)

Reason

Highly artistic shot that is eye-catching, convays information about the artist's persona, and is framed with clarity, appropriate dimentions and ambient levels to a superb effect.

Articles in which this image appears

Dandi Wind

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures#People

Creator

FrozenFear

• Support as nominator --Robo37 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The source is dead, meaning the licensing is hard to verify. Who precisely am I looking at here? The article says that the band had two members. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image with info can be found at http://www.redthreat.us/2008/05/02/kickoff/. It is the picture of the lead singer by the same name (Dandilion Wind Opaine is her full name). Although there are other members of the band she's the frontman and is shown on her own on the album covers and music videos and also performs front stage live. Robo37 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link doesn't provide any information about the copyright or license of the image... I think commons:COM:OTRS is probably in order for this image. — raekyt 05:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended to allow copyright verification. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, http://web.archive.org/web/20110708223818/http://www.dandiwind.com/images/press.htm doesn't really indicate the license is so broad as indicated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File was speedily deleted on Commons as copyright violation. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 11:05:42 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good quality, impressive photo

Articles in which this image appears

Tony Estanguet, Whitewater slalom, Canoeing at the 2012 Summer Olympics

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

Creator

Pavel.rycl

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful action shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Agree, great action shot, and good detail. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice action shot, strong EV. Spencer^T♦C 08:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 14:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, stunning. It seems the photographer created an account just to upload this picture. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent quality photo with high EV. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Colin°^Talk 09:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strong EV. Alborzagros (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very strong photograph, good EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tony Estanguet.jpg --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 11:50:10 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Donkey

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Lilly M

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Focus looks a little soft around the ears but that may be just the hair, otherwise looks like a decent image and it looks like does a good job of capturing the subject. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Tomcat (7) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC
• Support good quality Ashkan P. (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last support came in after the voting period ended. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's always been ignored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 10:10:37 (UTC)

Reason

It is of a high technical quality. Good contrast, sharp, accurate exposure. Good composition with no distractions. It is a unique image as it is extremely difficult to take a picture of this personality. In fact, there are no recent pictures of him that come close to this quality, copyrighted or otherwise. It is the best picture of Ali Sistani on the web or in print. Period.

Articles in which this image appears

Ali al-Sistani

FP category for this image

Muslim scholars

Creator

isakazimi

• Support as nominator --hasin 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Excellent quality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I Oppose the alternative - awkward cutout, particularly around the beard. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Have to disagree, the wrinkled white bed sheet as a background and very bland dull lighting does not make this a good portrait. That combined with the sinister stare he's giving... not my opinion of a FP quality image. It also doesn't meet our minimum size requirements on any axis, so Speedy Close. — raekyt 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think you can speedy close when a nomination has already received a support other than the nominator's -Muhammad(talk) 12:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit 1 Uploaded I have tried to fix the background and given a shadows adjustment --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Low res according to the requirements but when we raised the limit, we had mentioned that exceptions could be made for rare/historical images. --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a modern photo of a living person, why should this meet that exception on size? Explain... — raekyt 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exceptions can be made for rare photos. This is the best quality photo I have seen on the internet or otherwise. Since he is very well protected, under normal circumstances, photographers would not even be allowed near him with a camera. --Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • just as in wp:nfc a living person can't be used as an exception since we could get better, the clause was intended for things like File:Pale Blue Dot.png which clearly we can't get a higher resolution version of. — raekyt 19:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest you take a look at the discussion where several people who supported mentioned exceptions could be made for difficult images. The current criteria mention Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed. This clearly meets the criteria --Muhammad(talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm aware of what was discussed, what I meant, I thought I said, was if he's alive it's not impossible. — raekyt 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm of the opinion that it is, due to his seclusion, security and lack of any public appearances. --Muhammad(talk) 06:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Raeky: I think the wrinkled bed sheet gives the photo character as it displays the reality of his simple life in the suburbs of Najaf. The lighting in my opinion is realistic. If you think creative lighting makes for a good people encyclopedic photo, i beg to differ. I feel, the more realistic the lighting, the more encyclopedic, at least for people. Landscapes/effects are better-of with creative lighting. As far as the size is concerned, anyone here who has ever printed digital photos would know that in a A4 size print, a photo with 1500 px dimension would look no different from a picture with a 1000 px width. Do also note that a better picture is currently practically impossible. If you feel this cannot be the case, try to appeal to the larger wikipedia community for one. Hence, just because of the size, it would be cruel not to feature this very rare photo. If you wish to understand why I call this a rare photo, have a look at [[2]] and see how many of them even have a photo available, let alone, one of this quality. As to 'sinister stare', i believe thats your subjective opinion and cannot be a base for opposing.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Looks like a passport photograph. The eyes aren't in focus and the sheeting material behind him is distracting. The edit alt is poor in terms of the cutout and the lifting the shadows was undesirable: it makes his black cloak grey. For the record, I agree with Muhammad wrt an exception to the size criterion: just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't make it a realistic possibility. Colin°^Talk 09:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your basis of assuming it is a passport photograph? And if it is, why is that a reason for opposing? I think the eyes are in focus. In my opinion the eyes make the photo look alive, and is one of the strongest aspect of this photo.41.79.68.1 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be aware on FPC's policy on anonymous IP editors for nomination pages... You may want to use an account, since this is your first edit on wikipedia it make's your involvement here a bit suspicious, or did you just forget to login? The reason is clearly stated, it looks like a passport photograph. Take a look at other featured picture portraits, they all have FAR better quality and interest than this photograph. Sure he may be hard to photograph, maybe near impossible to photograph, he's still alive so it's still POSSIBLE. I really can't see the case that a living person is so infinitesimally hard to photograph that we have to make exceptions like this, not only is it too small per our standards, it's just very poor snapshotty quality. — raekyt 01:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I disagree with the IP's opinion I strongly support its right to comment here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Low lighting on both, the original has a horrible background and the edit has the previously mentioned cutout issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel this picture is of very high EV simply because none other is available or will be available unless the political situation changes drastically in Iraq. As far as EV goes there are very high chances that this is the best picture that will be available of this personality. hasin 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 10:48:25 (UTC)

Reason

Historic image, of very good quality. This nomination is after King of Hearts' nomination in Commons, making it FP there.

Articles in which this image appears

Eastman Kodak, History of New York

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Detroit Publishing Company (Uploaded by UpstateNYer)

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very impressive... and not just sharpness, but how it is obviously a well thought shot (framing, perspective lines, leveling, lighting). - Blieusong (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would benefit from light restoration; at the very least, the in-image caption should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I'd probably leave the caption in. Or at least give the option to leave it in. I might have a go. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: good EV. I'm with Milburn on the caption; I just don't think the factors are big enough to swing this to an oppose. We're using this image for its subject, not as an image itself; for that reason, the caption is (a bit) distracting to the scene. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I have to agree on the caption, it detracts from the EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 09:13:23 (UTC)

Reason

It shows an interesting part of U.S. History that has been all but forgotten.

Articles in which this image appears

• African Americans in the United States Congress
• List of African-American Republicans
• History of the United States Republican Party
• List of African-American officeholders during the Reconstruction

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History seems the best target.

Creator

Currier and Ives, restoration Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very historic, it's in good detail for pencil a lithograph, I don't mind featuring this nor putting my name on it. ---Saw1998 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, it's a lithograph. Lithographs create shading by a semi-random process of etching stone with acid: the longer acid is on the stone, the more and deeper pits form. When you're done etching it, the pits hold ink, which can be transferred to paper. The efffect does look a little like pencil sketching, but pencil sketching gets that look from paper grain, whereas lithographs come down to the grain of the rock. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. ---Saw1998 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support So long as the license on File:First colored senator and reps.png matches the license on this image (i.e. getting rid of the share-alike clause), and and probably a PNG of this restoration version (looks like paper was whitened more) is uploaded over the linked image and proper links in the images to indicate the PNG->JPEG versions. Coming out of retirement? — raekyt 05:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat. Anyway, the PNG is fixed. Well, insofar as it can be fixed when Wikipedia can make TIFF support from scratch, but can't make the most popular lossless format work for large sizes, despite apparently having had working fixes for some time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - why have you retitled this for the nomination? Yomangani^talk 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's Senates outside of the United States. While it's obvious in context that it's referring to the United States, for FPC, it's helpful to internationalise it a little, to give context.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's what you were after, the subtitle makes it clear. Using the British English spelling of "colour" isn't appropriate for this image. Yomangani^talk 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm British. It's how I spell things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: clear EV, seems as good a representation as any. Why the fuss over the name of the nomination? It's just to give an idea of the subject matter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:First Colored Senator and Representatives.jpg --Julia\^talk 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 08:39:20 (UTC)

• 
  The Garden at Somersby Rectory
• 
  Mariana
• 
  The Deserted House
• 
  The Lady of Shalott
• 
  Œnone
• 
  The Lotos-Eaters
• 
  St. Simeon Stylites
• 
  Sleeping Beauty
• 
  Sir Galahad
• 
  Break, Break, Break

Reason

A complete set of images for an interesting artist in the Arts and Crafts movement, and a set of notable poems.

Articles in which this image appears

All: William Edward Frank Britten; Individuals: As linked in gallery (above), also: The Garden at Somersby Rectory is used in Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and note Sleeping Beauty's link redirects to The Day-Dream, the title of the expanded version of the poem. There's a few other uses as well, for instance, the Mariana illustration is used in Measure for Measure, and Sleeping Beauty is used in the fairy-tale's page, Sleeping Beauty.

Notes

Due to need for consistency in a much larger set, the current FP, File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg - is no longer used (well, not much). Also, there's minor duplication between illustrative images in William Britten - this is in order to have the gallery in book order, without gaps, while still having an example of his works.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Artwork/Literary illustrations

Creator

W. E. F. Britten, restored by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom and good digitalization. I just wonder whether this is a charcoal. Brandmeister^talk 19:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they're photogravures, but that's basically a photographic reproduction technique that can be used on anything you can photograph. Either charcoal or graphite sticks would be my guess for the original art being photographed, which works really well with the reproduction method. -Adam.
• Support - Great restoration and digitalisation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment PNG versions, could you upload PNG versions for a lossless version if someone else wants to use or edit them? Are the original versions uploaded too? — raekyt 06:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be PNG versions linked for all, I'm not really sure why you think there aren't. Did I miss one? I have the originals, but uploading these was a hideous 12-hour process; so I skipped it. I'll start that now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. The original scans are all uploaded, and are linked, although a few of the uploads turned out to have been done years ago to a bad filename, or I typo'd the name while uploading, so there's a few redlinks until after the requested file moves happen. But everything should be there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support then. — raekyt 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical oppose: e.g. File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - The Lady of Shalott.jpg doesn't have a us rationale. PD-1923 would suffice, I think (haven't looked through them all). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, fuck me. Why do they have a tag if you have to have a second tag as well? That's incredibly stupid and annoying, and means editing 30+ pages. >=/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my oppose accordingly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Okay, fixed. But I swear: Between the Upload Wizard and its stupidities, uploading another 22 files just to document this, 10 at the request of someone on here, I have literally spent about 18 hours just trying to give these to Wikipedia. Surely there has to be a better way? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry if I'm a little annoyed (althoguh I'm actually laughing a bit as well) but this has literally taken about 18 hours to deal with all of this, and at least half of that is down to problems with the upload interface and templates over at Commons. Hopefully, that finishes the work on this set. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good restoration, solid ev. Spencer^T♦C 08:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Chick Bowen 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - The Lady of Shalott.jpg --Julia\^talk 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And the other nine images in the set. Julia\^talk 21:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 06:51:51 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good composition

Articles in which this image appears

Tasman Lake

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Avenue

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A very impressive view and the tour boats are tiny! The sky has some evenness problems and a bit of rough patching in the top-right. It would be nice if that could be fixed but I'm prepared to overlook that considering the scene. Colin°^Talk 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now (but thanks for the nomination). Besides the problems with the sky, I'm not convinced by its EV in the Tasman Lake article. It is not integrated with the text of the article, which seems either over-illustrated or too short. --Avenue (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak EV and artificial looking sky. Even assuming good faith that it is the natural color, a straight up gradient sky doesn't look good. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per comments about EV of this photo, and I agree with the criticism of the upper right. File:Lake Tasman and Mount Cook 101 5770.jpg has stronger EV although its technical quality is also lacking. If someone can get a better quality photo from the angle of File:Lake Tasman and Mount Cook 101 5770.jpg then I think we would have a stronger case for encyclopedic value and FP promotion. --Pine^✉ 10:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 09:11:29 (UTC)

Reason

A fine bit of on-the-spot reporting, by a notable artist. Only historical image for the Green-Meldrim House article, which seems valuable.

By the way, the weird title is because that's what it's called in Waud's notes on it:

Articles in which this image appears

• William Waud
• Green-Meldrim House
• Could probably be used in others.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History

Creator

William Waud, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor comment - it isn't called that in his notes - the placement of "Savannah Ga" into that position in the title seems to been sloppy work by the LoC, as does the full stop after "Chas" (if they wanted to use up their excess full stops it would be better to place one after "Gen" where it would belong). Yomangani^talk 00:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there's a ^ pointing at the Savannah, Ga. It's a common way to add text that you haven't left space for. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: sorry Adam, I'm unconvinced on this one. It's just that the illustration isn't particularly enlightening. Essentially for the image isn't exciting/doesn't draw the reader in as an image. So this puts more of a focus on EV, though, of course, "signficiant contribution" would be required anyway. So looking at what the image shows, if I was asked to describe it, it just looks like a room with a tiled floor and some fairly large pot plants. So I'm not sure what else the reader is supposed to "take away" from the image to aid his or her understanding of the topic. I think it has more potential at William Waud, since the CIvil War was his standout topic, but the article is currently bit underdeveloped - and the contribution of the image not discussed particularly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Essentially per Grandiose, nothing particularly spectactular which is what's needed for something of this type. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's the only historical image we have, or are likely to get, of the Green-Meldrim House. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • you sure? — raekyt 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, post-1933 is technically historic, but not relevant to the historic events at the house. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 07:08:40 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV, high quality, impressive

Articles in which this image appears

John Day Formation

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Finetooth

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Top left is not optimal, and this could have been taken at a better time of day. But wow, I've never seen a place like this before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Stunning landscape, certainly eye-catching. Brandmeister^talk 17:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I like the colors on this and the EV is good, but I see something that looks like a strange blurry outline directly above the rock formations near the top of the photo. Is that a compression artifact? --Pine^✉ 00:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might just be heat haze or the like. Optics can be weird. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, Support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• At full resolution I see a dark horizontal band across the entire sky. Perfectly straight and not natural. Rmhermen (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see what you mean... Could you describe it in more detail, or provide an enhanced image that shows it up better? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Top far left is totally blown out and just to the right of that is a greenish spot that looks like either a compression artifact or some sort of reflection, in either case it's distracting but only really noticeable if you're looking closely at that section of the image. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support while this photo could be better technically I think it's good enough for now. We can do a D&R later if we get something better. The photo's subject is impressive. --Pine^✉ 09:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fails size criterion. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the short side it is only about 1000 high, but on the long side it is about 3800 wide and I view this as an acceptable tradeoff. --Pine^✉ 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:East face painted hills panorama.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Um...what? This doesn't meet the criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were other pictures as well which didn't meet the criteria but passed. Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 08:00:50 (UTC)

Reason

Very fascinating panorama with very high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Ambleside

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The uncertain clouds create patches of light and dark in the images, adding dimension to the landscape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very detailed and well composed. Colin°^Talk 11:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I didn't check every inch of this image for defects but in my random checks it looks good. Size is great and EV is adequate. --Pine^✉ 00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This one was on my list to nominate at some point anyway. As for defects, I think it's pretty clean. I haven't seen any. I took the photo on a tripod so any parallax problems should be minimised by this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big wow (composition and light) and mostly certain it comes with EV. Would probably serve the article well to move this picture up a little. - Blieusong (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Makes me want to revisit my old haunts =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I know we're supposed to give coherent reasons for our vote but just wow, that's my reasoning. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama 2, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 08:03:26 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Loughrigg Tarn, Loughrigg Fell

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama

Creator

Diliff

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not bad overall, but the top left seems a little hazy to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice angle and good size. I agree with KOH that this could be clearer but I think this is good enough for now. We can do a D&R later if we get something better. --Pine^✉ 00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Surprised by the nomination as it's one of the smaller ponds in the Lake District, but I suppose it's as valid as any other subject. As for the haze, it should be fairly trivial to adjust the black level to reduce it and I'll try to do that tonight, but haze is a natural phenomenon and I don't think it's realistic to expect every landscape to be crystal clear, devoid of any shadows etc. They still need to be presented realistically. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Woww, that takes me back. I lived in Dunnerdale a while, and hiked to Ambleside a few times. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Despite the hazy corner it's overall a high quality image. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support to make Cat-five's weak support count for something. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Loughrigg Tarn - Oct 2009.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 20:10:12 (UTC)

Click to view – An exotic dancer demonstrating a lap dance

Reason

A beautiful photograph with high EV.

Articles in which this image appears

lap dance

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle

Creator

Wallanon

• Support as nominator --PseudoChron (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Way under our usual size requirements, bearing in mind it isn't a historical photograph. Also I have some concerns that, particularly for FPs, there might be some non-copyright protection here about privacy. Not my area of expertise. Having said that, the size issue is really significant. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: too small, poorly lit, her feet are cut off which is a big problem because her shoes are probably part of her costume. If the intent here is shock value, note that shocking is quite compatible with artistic quality; see the FP Indecency. Chick Bowen 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chick Bowen Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Muhammad Mahdi Karim has hidden the image, saying that "FPC should be SFW [safe for work]". Is that the case? I have to say I see no reason why it should be different to other parts of the encyclopedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter. This is not the image about which to have that debate. This nomination should be speedily closed anyway. Chick Bowen 23:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he's correct. Refer to WP:UNCENSORED. If you choose to view a potentially unsafe article that's your business and he's not arguing the article should be censored or the image deleted, or that is unfeatureable due to its nature. It's just that it shouldn't be splashed around common areas of the encyclopaedia like this where people are not expecting to view potentially offensive material, much as it wouldn't be placed on the mainpage. Thus it is a valid nomination, but it is appropriate to hide it to allow users the option of whether to view it or not depending on their circumstances and sensibilities. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted [Speedy close: this nomination has no chance of promotion, due to being far under size requirements.] --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 17:36:00 (UTC)

Reason

Reopening this nomination, after the close-promotion last time

Articles in which this image appears

Donkey

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

Lilly M

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as last time--Tomcat (7) 17:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That we can't handle this sensibly, and have to renominate, is a total waste of everyone's time, as this should have been promoted already. When there isn't a single oppose, and 5 supports, it should be promoted, end of sentence. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on principle, and would support speedy promotion, in agreement with Adam above. The only reason to be draconian about the end-date is if someone seems to be deliberately trying to game it somehow, which is hardly the case with a unanimous nomination like that one. Chick Bowen 23:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As above. This should have just gone through. Voting count nonsense aside, it's also clearly a worthwhile entry. -- Cooper ⁴²_{(Talk)(Contr)} 01:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --@krishna (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Equus asinus Kadzidłowo 001.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy promote. Passed previous nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion here regarding this issue. --jjron (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 15:03:29 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good lighting, sharpness and composition

Articles in which this image appears

Conopholis americana

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others

Creator

Dan Molter (shroomydan), Mushroom Observer

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hmm, not sure that I like the composition, as it's clearly taken at an angle (trees in the background provide vertical reference). I think I'd have preferred that the photo show the true angle that the plant is growing at. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In addition to what Diliff said, the crop is a little close for me. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both the immediate an far background is incredibly busy with the leaves and the green which is only accentuated by the close crop. The up/down perspective doesn't help either in my opinion. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 19:41:50 (UTC)

Reason

Historic picture, high EV, good scan and eye-catching

Articles in which this image appears

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, History of agriculture in the United States, History of the United States (1865–1918)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History

Creator

Strobridge & Co. Lith.

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Colin°^Talk 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What a lovely image, and well-restored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great resolution. Made me look more into it. ComputerJA (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support looks solid.©Geni 09:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Almost seems unnecessary but good quality, high EV. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Much EV. Alborzagros (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gift for the grangers ppmsca02956u.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 21:04:24 (UTC)

Reason

The photo illustrates the beaching of a wooden fishing ship built in 1935 at the Danish fishing village Vorupør at the West coast of Denmark. One of the few places in Denmark, where boats are still beached. The village is situated in Thy Nationalpark, with its characteristic sand dunes shown in the background. The dark clouds and light are representative of November conditions in the area. An attempt has been made to capture the light in a manner reminiscent of the style used by the Skagen Painters.

Articles in which this image appears

Vorupør, Thy (district)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

Slaunger

• Abstain as nominator --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. A great picture of course, though I find EV a little on the low side. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I follow it as far as the photo adresses several topics, beaching, Vorupør, Thy district, and Thy national park. Of these beaching is probably the topic with the most EV? The photo was originally used in beaching (nautical), which had no illustrations, but I replaced it a few days ago with another photo from the same series of photos, showing two beached ships and with an angle of view showing more of the littoral environment. Maybe that photo has a little more EV and focuses more on a specific topic, giving a clearer message. Is that a better candidate? --Slaunger (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cumulative EV is strong. Picture is great. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fair EV, well taken photo. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose EV is low my opinion. The photo would have better EV in the article beaching. The other photo in the Nørre Vorupør article has better EV although technically it has more problems so I would oppose that also. --Pine^✉ 10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 10:03:58 (UTC)

Reason

High EV, good sharpness and light, interesting composition with the boats

Articles in which this image appears

Lange Nelle Lighthouse

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Busy foreground, a few visual issues such as blown highlights on the boat (unavoidable I know but still distracting) and what appears to be soft focus towards the very top of the lighthouse. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: A good photo, but just not good enough of a camera. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, isn't this a D90? I'd think that would be adequate, although I agree that there are a couple blown highlights/focus issues. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 10:08:59 (UTC)

Reason

Very nice light, good EV, quality and composition

Articles in which this image appears

Spitzkoppe

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

Ikiwaner

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The dark sections on the right and especially on the left ruin it for me. The one on the right could probably be compensated for in Photoshop (although that might be a controversial modification of the original) but the one on the left is just so dark. Cat-fivetc ---- 05:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. You're not going to get better lighting than at sunrise/sunset for rock formations like this. I don't mind the shadows that much. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose we already have an FP in this article and there are several photos in the article. The technical quality seems decent but not great. Overall I'm not convinced that this is worthy of FP. --Pine^✉ 10:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2012 at 17:58:41 (UTC)

Reason

Taking this picture in wild terrain has meant eight days of walking through different environments cruise at high altitudes.

Articles in which this image appears

Charolais cattle

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

--Wilfredor

• Support as nominator --Wilfredor (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support illustrative and eye catching. Tomer T (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Excellent quality, but that plant is kind of distracting. Dusty777 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is indeed a wild (i.e. feral) bull, I wish there were something in the article about a wild population. Chick Bowen 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a great picture but I think the EV is poor. According to the article they are large muscled beef cows that are almost pure white. So I think this and this are better pictures in that regard. -- Colin°^Talk 16:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka Durka

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 15:04:56 (UTC)

Reason

Great looking, high resolution shot that honors the military nicely. It also has public domain rights.

Articles in which this image appears

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

FP category for this image

Military

Creator

Catie Drew

• Support as nominator --Staypuftman (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Oppose I love the memorial, but the angle isn't that great (a head on view would be better), there is quite a bit of noise throughout the picture, and the flash lighting isn't as appealing as sunlight. Dusty777 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This was considered before at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USMC War Memorial. Note the various other edits introduced during that process. Chick Bowen 17:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and suggest speedy close There seemed to be a strong consensus to not promote this image last time, and it still suffers from unfixable problems with composition (the base being cut off) and lighting. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to a speedy close, given that the image was pretty well discussed last time, including adjustments that could be made through editing. Having looked through the various images, I find most of them suffer from the sculpture's height, which causes an exaggerated perspective and a lot of sky. The best approach is probably this one, from further back, though that is obviously too small. I haven't been there since I was a small child and am basing this on the photographs, but I get the sense there's a bit of a rise on the other side of the grassy area they use for military reviews. A photo from up there, with a longer lens, would work pretty well. This is a much-visited site, so I'd think we could get a decent picture at some point. Chick Bowen 22:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted (Speedy closed) --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 13:28:43 (UTC)

Reason

A high quality portrait of a notable political figure

Articles in which this image appears

Roza Otunbayeva, President of Kyrgyzstan, List of elected or appointed female heads of state

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political

Creator

Smakaroff

• Support as nominator --V_oBEDD 13:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be blatant copyright violation from http://www.roza.kg It's the main image used on that website, there's many image galleries on it, and press releases. VERY unlikely the uploader is the photographer. Nominating it for speedy deletion. — raekyt 17:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 18:45:22 (UTC)

Reason

I believe that this image meets the FP criteria and should become featured.

Articles in which this image appears

Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres (more than seven days), Usain Bolt

FP category for this image

People

Creator

Nick Webb

• Support as nominator --Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sad to cut off the feet and legs of someone who makes his living by them. Chick Bowen 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. He's not sprinting. Spikebrennan (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per EV issues cited above. --Pine^✉ 09:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is this a warmup routine or a victory celebration? 75.41.109.190 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Victory celebration, see "... Bolt after the ..." Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose. I agree with Spikebrennan. --@ツ KrIshnA^Talk2me 11:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons above. Also, as far as I could determine from all discussions prior to the Olympics, we're not actually allowed to use any photos taken within the Olympic venues as per the ticket's 'conditions of entry' because the licence implies the ability to use the photos commercially, which LOCOG prohibits. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/August#Licences_on_Olympic_images. Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that discussion invalidates what I was saying above. Just because we could (in theory) use the image without breaking the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, it doesn't mean we couldn't be sued for using the image. I see this analogy as appropriate: If someone steals a bike and sell it to you, you're still liable as you're purchased stolen goods. Likewise, if we use an image that was distributed illegally by someone, we are potentially still implicated. Even if this isn't the case and we're not liable, I don't think we should happily re-use the images knowing that they are being distributed 'illegally'. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've long accepted photos taken in museums with similar restrictions. Why should the Olympics be any different? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure.. have we? Usually museums have restrictions on photography using tripods (which they claim is a health and safety issue but which seems to target those who want to take professional quality images). Hmm, well I've looked at a few of the major British Museums' policies and indeed some of them do specifically prohibit commercial photography, and others simply ask for notification in advance. So I wonder on what basis (legal or otherwise) we accept images under licences which are at odds with the museum policies. Is it, as per above, a case where we can't be held responsible for breaches of the law that contributors make? Sounds morally ambiguous to me, even though I'm sympathetic to notion of the collections being fully available to the public. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't even Bolt's signature celebration move (this is). Spencer^T♦C 03:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo shows the beginning of the move, but yes, not the pose. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't want to pile on so I won't frame this as an oppose but the above EV consideration of whether a featured picture of a runner has to show him running aside, I can't help but makes me think that the full potential of a picture of him is not being utilized, he's been cut off at the knees, both literally and idiomatically. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 18:14:20 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Felucca

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Water

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a tough subject given all the sky and water in the image, but I feel it's a little underexposed. Chick Bowen 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose having the sun directly overhead, or shooting this from a different angle, might give better lighting and EV. --Pine^✉ 09:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on the EV point? I think we can see all the details, or at least all the major details, of the ship. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an angle from above or more to the side of the ship would give a better view of the features of the ship and its proportions. --Pine^✉ 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support I like it, but it's not really wowing me technically or compositionally. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose This is a good quality photo with solid EV, but I agree that a more side-on angle would have been much superior and the exposure does seem a bit off. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - having considered this, I think the view would be improved by being from the side, but not by much. I'm not sure about "much" superior, but a bit. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The slight underexposure is not a big issue, the angle of the boat is a bigger but not huge issue, both together make me have to oppose this. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 15:42:29 (UTC)

Reason

High quality and high EV

Articles in which this image appears

Starý most (Bratislava)

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

MJJR

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose good angle but focus should be better for an FP. --Pine^✉ 09:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I might argue that the focus is a little off only at the leftmost part, and that's not the important part in the picture. Tomer T (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The right part of the bridge is cut off, although it reaches the shore. Generally not a visually appealing bridge for me. Brandmeister^talk 13:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above mentioned focus issues and agreeing that even though you have to pick a point somewhere to have the edge of frame and that's going to cut out part of the bridge, the composition looks unappealing on the right side because of where it was cut off. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:39:56 (UTC)

Reason

I'm nominating this as an image showing the atmosphere and the range of social and sporting activity at a small rowing club: it's not to show boats or boat houses which are well represented on Wikimedia, and the rowing club itself is not noteworthy. This is chosen from many shots because it shows so many different things happening, like those Victorian conversation piece paintings, as well as a decent stretch of the water to give an idea of the setting. I'm a bit worried about the lighting, bright sunshine and deep shadows, but I guess I'll soon find out what people think about that - I prefer it not manipulated to lighten the shadows, although that would make the detail clearer.

Articles in which this image appears

Rowing club, Rowing (sport)

FP category for this image

Sport

Creator

User:ProfDEH

• Support as nominator --ProfDEH (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The atmosphere of the image is nice, and I think that the lighting etc is fine, however I think the composition is too tight on the bottom, left and right. In other words, too many things feel chopped off. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with JJ Harrison - I would like to see a wider shot... gazhiley 08:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have to agree with the above, a busy shot is fine but the framing looks off. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 15:39:04 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and good quality

Articles in which this image appears

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Tallinn

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Poco a poco

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - I feel really drawn in. I'm not an expert on identifying perspective problems, for example, but the technicals seem good. It's well framed and from a nice angle, in my opinion. Pity about the scaffolding though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Scaffolding happens. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support another photo from Poco a poco with good technical and EV quality. Pine^✉ 09:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even if there is the scaffold.--Tomcat (7) 10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough, people contribute to scale. Brandmeister^talk 13:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The scaffolding is a negative. Colin°^Talk 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Catedral de Alejandro Nevsky, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-11, DD 46.JPG --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 03:05:29 (UTC)

Reason

Already been a Valued image in Commons. Good image quality.

Articles in which this image appears

Cinderella Castle, Magic Kingdom

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Katie Rommel-Esham

• Support as nominator --Mediran ^{talk to me!} 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I checked commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States, as a copyright check, and we're fine. Nice photo, not perfect (it's a teensy bit out of focus), but good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice colors but has too many problems with focus to be a featured picture. --Pine^✉ 09:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Partly as per Pine, but mainly as each spire is leaning towards the centre rather than verticle. Most noticible with the tallest spire which looks like one strong gust of wind and it'll fall off... gazhiley 13:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article, 'An optical trick known as forced perspective makes the Castle appear even larger than it actually is. As it becomes taller, its proportions get smaller. For example, using this method, the top spire of the Castle is actually close to half of the size it "appears." ' Not sure if the mentioned leaning is actually part of the architectural design, and how perspective should be presented in such a case. --125.25.5.90 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even though there don't seem to be any in the article, I have to imagine that a better photograph of this is possible. That's not to say that this is bad but for something like the Cinderella Castle that is probably photographed a million times a year, the bar should be incredibly high and this just doesn't meet it. Cat-fivetc ---- 12:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 22:30:08 (UTC)

Original sketch of the Burning of McPhersonville, South Carolina by William Waud, left, and as printed in Harper's Weekly, March 4, 1865, right.

Reason

A fine example of William Waud's work, and a (surprisingly rare) chance to see the full course, from initial sketch to final publication

Articles in which this image appears

Both are used in William Waud. The final state is additionally used in Carolinas Campaign and McPhersonville, South Carolina.

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History/USA_History

Creator

William Waud, restoration by Adam Cuerden

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: in a set, my understanding is that one image is usually treated as primary (for example, only one image ends up in POTD). In this case that would also make it easier to judge. Are we interested in the engraving and the process that led up to it, or the sketch and its afterlife? Chick Bowen 23:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's usually decided by Howcheng, I think. The engraving is used in more locations, though whether this is justified could, perhaps, be argued. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as example of Waud's process, in which case it seems to me that the sketch is primary. Chick Bowen 03:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, it's probably a small enough set that both can be shown. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tomer T (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support final version only, which seems more visually appealing. While I love drawing, the promotion of final image and sketch is rather non-standard, the existing link to the sketch in the file description would suffice IMO. Brandmeister^talk 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good to have sets that show artist's processes... — raekyt 06:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support set. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If we're going to support this Disco Inferno then the finished product should be the primary in my opinion. Cat-fivetc ---- 12:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Waud - Burning of McPhersonville 1865 - original sketch.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:William Waud - Burning of McPhersonville 1865 - final Harper's Weekly version.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 22:58:29 (UTC)

Reason

Beautiful close-up photo of a cello that's already featured on Commons, German Wikipedia, and Turkish Wikipedia

Articles in which this image appears

Cello and in many articles about musicians in Template:Cellist-stub

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Other unless someone can think of a better category

Creator

MichaelMaggs

• Support as nominator --Pine^✉ 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is an excellent photo, very well composed, and decidedly eye-catching. However, I'm not sure if it adds any actual encyclopedic value: It doesn't show the whole instrument, it doesn't show the bow from an angle that'd demonstrate technique, and the things that make it artistic maybe make it more useful in every website but this one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this close-up photo adds EV to the article since the other photos in the article lack this level of detail, and the Featured Picture Criteria include the statement that the photo "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more". I agree that a photo that showed the whole instrument would have stronger EV. In this case I think the photo does an excellent job at "making the viewer want to know more" which is also among the FP criteria. --Pine^✉ 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just passing by and noticed this. Beautiful. Tony (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support a bit low EV to my taste (agree with Adam), but indeed very beautiful and engaging. Also, Pine has a point. Tomer T (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A picture of the whole instrument would be better. This doesn't contribute any major EV... An awesome picture, but not really for Wikipedia. Dusty777 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Great photograph, I'd vote for it in an instant on commons, but the EV is severely lacking because it's only a partial shot. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 15:20:41 (UTC)

Reason

Fairly interesting pose, good enough quality for its age. Notable person, interesting costume

Articles in which this image appears

John Surratt +2

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others

Creator

Mathew Brady or Levin Handy, restored by JBarta and Crisco 1492.

• Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to say it, but I really don't like how the irestoration was recropped very tightly from the original. Reluctant oppose, but I will say this: Other than that, the restoration looks great. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I prefer the current crop over the original but agree that something not as tight would be better. If I get to a computer with decent internet access I'll try and save some of the extra room. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Adam; a Brady photo should be represented according to Brady's intentions unless damage makes it impossible to do so. Chick Bowen 03:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the original, the bottom and left sides are damaged (possibly beyond repair). There will have to be some cropping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trust me, that's not beyond repair; most of the damage is on a blank wall, and the rest is just small patches on a rug pattern complicated enough to not need full precision for the small bits missing. It takes a little practice with the clone stamp tool, but it's a good skill to have, as some of these images have much more complicated damage, such as damage to clothing or even the face. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm only about a third of the way through (didn't bring a flash drive to work on this at home). Still a work in progress — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] Looking pretty good so far! Two bits of advice, though: Don't save it as an interlaced JPEG, and work in lossless formats as much as possible while editing. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly, limited by the system (and the fact that it's not my computer, so I have to save my work in progress on Commons). Thanks, it might take a while though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose I have to agree on the crop, it doesn't work with such a tight crop. Disregard this if if an edit is posted with a looser crop. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted per User_talk:Crisco_1492#Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2FJohn_Surratt. The new version will be renominated shortly. --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:57:25 (UTC)

Reason

Good EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Dresden Frauenkirche

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture

Creator

Christian Prade

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too dark for my liking - very difficult to see much detail due to lack of light. For example I can see there is a statue just in front of the building (r of centre) but no chance of seeing what it is... gazhiley 08:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support: While Gazhiley has a point, not every image has to show every detail, and, for example, one can easily identify the statue from, say, File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-60015-0002,_Dresden,_Denkmal_Martin_Luther,_Frauenkirche,_Ruine.jpg, also in the article. However, the sky is rather noisy and blocky, which should be relatively easy to mitigate by selectively editing the sky alone, possibly with a slight gaussian blur. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose strange semi-transparent people and people missing their heads near the bottom of the photo. These kinds of errors can be fixed. --Pine^✉ 04:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per gazhily: the darkness prevents the detail in the building from being easily visible. Spencer^T♦C 02:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The photograph is of the church, not the square and not the people in it. I have to admit that the bottom left corner with it's huge amount of lights is distracting when the rest of the image is so dark but the building is clear and even on the dark background I can make out detail on it so I think the incredibly high EV makes up for any composition issues. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:05:00 (UTC)

Reason

High EV and high quality

Articles in which this image appears

Yak, Lists of mammals by population

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals

Creator

travelwayoflife

• Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As soon as I saw this, I just had to support it. Don't ask why. Dusty777 16:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Simple, effective, easy support... Certainly no need to "yak" on about reasons to support... ;-) gazhiley 13:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'd prefer a photo with less bokeh since parts of the animal's fur aren't sharp, but this is good enough. --Pine^✉ 04:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. — raekyt 05:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though the composition is good, most of the animal except its head is out of focus. On technical grounds, I don't think this can be called one of the best of works in wikipedia. Yaks aren't all that uncommon that we can't manage a well shot, sharply focused picture of it. - DSachan (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support While DSachan is right, I think that this photo is difficult enough to get location-wise that it excuses minor technical issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Adam's response to DSachan's criticism. Cat-fivetc ---- 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]