Support as nominator – MER-C 12:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion as to whether this is a set with the optional image. MER-C 16:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – leaning to support but how about a set nomination [1] and [2]? I know the aspect ratios don't match but a lot does match, the color schemes, backgrounds, closeup framing, etc. This makes a good set (more EV on color variation). Bammesk (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the set would be exhaustive. I have added the second image anyway and will let the voters decide whether this is a set or not. MER-C 16:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Support original, prefer set. Bammesk (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Second image doesn't add much. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 12:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – for the EV and restoration. But I disagree with the sharpening of his coat and the down sampling. Struck per Yann below. Bammesk (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The sharpness looks artificial, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the last upload, which is a violation of c:COM:OVERWRITE. Yann (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – High Encyclopedic value. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not sharp and shows the same thing (minus the chick). If you are asking "compositionally better"? That's subjective. I am Ok with either composition. Others can agree or disagree. Bammesk (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Yann (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 12:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A tad bit more sharpness needed, but I don't see a reason to not nominate it. --Pink Saffron (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir, French - The Grands Boulevards - Google Art Project.jpg --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
High EV, but the picture seems very soft. I wonder where does it come from, as the source mentioned has only an image of 843 x 1242 px. Yann (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per Yann it's too soft. This is not a good version. Click on the image on this source link and then zoom in, you will see a very sharp scan. Bammesk (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is still under a copyright in France, where the Estate of Pablo Picasso is based, but it is already in the public domain in USA. Yann (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Evocative self-portrait by an artistically gifted victim of Alzheimer's. Interesting article. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Fascinating artist. Compare it with this one he drew during Alzheimer's. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tragic.... – Sca (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – --Janke | Talk 15:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Painting title translates as Dusk in the Breakwater. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In the article the image is used in a gallery among many others. Is there anything in the article or sources that would distinguish this painting in some way? If there is, then that would support its encyclopedic value, FP criterion 5. Bammesk (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2021 at 16:35:26 (UTC)
Reason
Leonhard Euler, very prominent mathematician. For details see the lead section of his article and [3]. Edited image (removed minor bright spots). On a sidenote: [4], [5]
Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important person in mathematics. Lead image in article, too. Could be slightly cropped top & bottom, a bit of edges of frame showing. --Janke | Talk 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The three images are all different colours. How can we tell which is most faithful? The detail of the brushwork is not amazing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comes from the museum that houses the painting. Bammesk (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely trust the source, the Kunstmuseum in Basel. It is possible this particular image is slightly corrected to remove some brownish tint from varnishing - the other examples look much worse. --Janke | Talk 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about, he's clearly wearing a very fetching white and gold doublet... ;-) TSP (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find this image very confusing at the scale that it would be when used in an article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Image quality far from most featured pictures of Odonata. Wing over the head is a minus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 18:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A bit too dark for me... Correctable with "curves" in photoshop? (Maybe not - no detail in shadow; only chroma noise.) --Janke | Talk 18:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I said at Commons FPC, not as sharp as others like it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snapped in exactly the right 1/250th of a second! Slight motion blur of wings is actually a plus here. --Janke | Talk 20:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very soft in full size; small details and brushwork invisible. After all, the size of the original is 1.5 by 1.2 meters! --Janke | Talk 09:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to oppose. --Janke | Talk 11:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we should have nominations that have been rejected at Commons a week ago. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – An aerial view of an empty stadium & parking lot doesn't float my aesthetic boat. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It's well done. The wide angle barrel distortion isn't ideal, but I think it blends in well as part of the composition. Bammesk (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's [barrel distortion - it's just the shape of the stadium... However, there is of course keystone distortion due to the downward angle of the camera. --Janke | Talk 14:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the background's curvature on top (the stadium look Ok). I thought it was barrel, but apparently not. Bammesk (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I like this, and it captures something that other photos on the article Stadium do not. Because it is roofless, this shows the stadium archetype - the oval shape and tiered seating - and unlike most stadium views it also shows the whole structure and its context: the grand entrance, more modern additions around the sides, the scoreboard and the VIP box at the top. ProfDEH (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Struck the above vote, as user doesn’t has 100 edits. See instructions on the top of WP:FPC. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 04:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – But I don't understand the perspective correction in your last upload. The text at the bottom is now tilting right; and on top, the edge of the white marble is titling left. fixed. Bammesk (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, sorry. That was the wrong version. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2021 at 16:27:09 (UTC)
Reason
So, this article has already one featured picture but I wonder if it can have more than one. This image does illustrate two other particular properties of fumarolic minerals that are discussed in sources but are currently not very well illustrated - their multicoloured appearance and how they are deposited on the surfaces of rock cavities. As far as I can tell, it was produced by the same technique as the other one.
Comment – I read the article but don't see specific content that relates to this image, or content that sets this image apart from the infobox image (which is already FP). So I don't see how it adds significant EV to the article (FP criterion 5) over and above what the FP image in the infobox already adds. Bammesk (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main distinction is that here the colouration and crust-like appearance [both of which are mentioned in the article] of fumarolic sublimates stand out more than in the lead image. There in turn the hair-like appearance of some accumulates stands out more. Neither image captures all aspects of fumarole minerals perfectly, but together they are closer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, if the highest resolution available is uploaded - per the last upload reason "higher res (6889x21201 is also available, but exceeds 100MB limit)". Should be possible with chunked upload, software bugs notwithstanding. MER-C 19:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – MER-C 16:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Black border on top, slightly cutoff at bottom, lighting uneven, looks like a lot of reflections in paint cracks, compare with this: [6] --Janke | Talk 19:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commonists account MER-C has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013 and has been blocked indefinitely on Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be blocked on enwiki, too. --Janke | Talk 10:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C Yes, Commonists has a tendency to replace images with own versions (a moderator should check recent edits), and was warned on talk page. I reverted the image in the article as well as in this FPC listing, since the original image was better, none of the faults I mentioned above. --Janke | Talk 10:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need, their account is now locked globally. MER-C 17:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I vote conditional support on the original file only, now shown here. (Purge cache if not visible.) Condition: copyright line at lower right to be removed, if legally possible. --Janke | Talk 10:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. MER-C 17:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2021 at 04:57:13 (UTC)
Reason
Emmy Noether, one of the top mathematicians of 20th century, contributed to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. Several contributions are named after her, including Noether's theorem which is the mathematical framework of conservation of energy. Following her death, Einstein wrote a letter in the New York Times (May 5, 1935) in recognition of her contributions [7]. The image is shy of the 1500 pixel count, but I think this qualifies for an exception. The image is historic, has high EV and good composition. The original is 1450×2085 pixels, I uploaded it for reference. The white periphery had always been cropped, because it fits the articles better that way, so after doing some minor touchups I cropped the periphery to what it was. This is a renomination after addressing the copyright on Commons here.